tv U.S. Senate CSPAN August 15, 2013 10:00am-5:01pm EDT
motivated you can also participate and challenge and give us a fee system projects that people should be working on. if you haven't been over here and you had been next door, you would have heard a lieutenant in the mechanical engineering which is the unmanned systems world give a presentation on a nine month project looking at the uavs. as we get tasking from operational folks, we did a lot of research for onr and others but we are also interested in you talking to students and also letting us show you what's going on at nps if you can't find any good reason to come to monterey we really need to have a talk. [laughter] >> thank you. we have time for one more question. who's got another good one? this has been great. you have been participating. give me one more. >> i could add some questions.
>> please. >> i was wondering if duane come could you give a little insight into how the sequestration without getting into the specifics that involve the budget issues we have going on, how is that impacting your daily life? >> okay. wow. it has impacted -- i will talk specifically first about the furloughs. we have agreed to government civilians that work for the government and particularly for my office. so, it is affecting them. 20% of your workweek is now disappeared and you're not allowed to be paid for that. but, you know, as we look forward and we understand where the department is going and where the navy is going into the sequestration you have to kind of look at it from the strategic
perspective as well, what are we trying to accomplish. so they are great americans stepping up to the plate and doing what they can do. so that has been an impact on my people. and that's something that, you know, you helped them get through. but there has been an impact. we do a lot of discussions but, you know, the good news is i think our naval senior leadership realizes that this is a very, very important area. unmanned systems is the future. so, the cno recently put out its guidance, navigation plan for this year and very paramount in the discussion is unmanned systems, including the others. so it's important to the senior navy leadership. so, despite the challenges that
we have, you know, to have our budget under control across the entire government and in the united states, it's important. so we all have to make sure that we are sharpening our pencils and we are delivering what is required by that war fighter but on cost and on schedule and there is a lot of scrutiny on that and that is what i get paid to do. in general there is support for these unmanned systems because i think our senior naval leadership realized this is an important area for the future. so there is support that they are also asking to make sure that we are doing our utmost in the acquisition community to look at affordability and make sure we are delivering the best we can to the war fighter. >> we have drawn to a conclusion here. you have heard for excellent
panelists. let's give them a round of applause for their great work. [applause] thank you all very much and please, turning your surveys in the back to the gentleman in the green shirt. [inaudible conversations] violence continues in cairo egypt and a press reporter in the egyptian capital says there are dozens of bodies stored inside a mosque and its still unclaimed by families. some of the hundreds of people killed yesterday in the clashes between police and supporters of the islamist president moris. it's not clear if the bodies in the death toll or 525 people. president obama is due to make a statement shortly on the egyptian violence. we will have his comments live on c-span expected in about ten minutes from now at 10:15
eastern. the president is speaking from martha's vineyard where he and his family have been vacationing. again lie of at 10:15 eastern on c-span. tonight on the town hall we are asking who do you think this represents the future we will get established and up-and-coming political figures and ask republicans, democrats and third party supporters to call in and tell us who they are watching and looking to lead their party in the next presidential election and beyond. here is a preview. >> starting in 2013, this year, there are two gubernatorial races in the united states. there's new jersey where chris christie is clinging on to the 30-point lead over his democratic opponent. >> i think that he outweighs the area. [laughter] >> outweighs most. let's be clear. but he's going to win. i am a new jerseyian.
there are some who are not enamored of him. come to new jersey and when you spend some time in new jersey i think you might understand that regardless of what you think of him on a more national stage, he is exactly what the state of new jersey has needed. he has been the best thing that happened to my state in my lifetime and, you know, the state has been run by police for decades -- bullies for decades. and he is a bit of a bully from time to time, but that is what we needed. he is going to win. in virginia, which is my new adopted home state there is also a gubernatorial contest and speaking only on my own behalf and not urging any of you to go out and support any candidate in compliance with the tax law, i will say that ken cuchinelli is in a tough fight down there. it is in it and talking and i think it is going to be a tossup race and it's going to be very ugly and there are a lot of
undecided voters so if you are on the side lines thinking about what can i do this year, who might help, whoever you might see fit, ken cuchinelli is probably in more need of help and chris christie that is sitting pretty. i would be remiss if i moved on from 2020 -- 2013 without pointing out that there are a couple of elections aunts of timber and in colorado. [applause] and those will be fascinating to watch. so getting some of the inside dynamics about those last night at dinner from the state senators but you probably know more about that than i do. let's look at 2014. >> just for context through our friends in scottsdale, counter out of constitution since 1876 has provided that we the people may petition to fire a state legislator in the middle of his or her house or senate or for cause as the people may see fit to the it doesn't just have to
be malfeasance of some kind. in this case, senator john morris of corydon springs happens to be the senate president, and senator angela heron of pueblo, a blue-collar steel town and mike was identified at from detroit. heron and morris are on the ballot to be recalled because of deep objections by their constituents to particularly the gun grabbing votes that they cast some would say at the behest of the new york mayor michael bloomberg in this last legislative session. it's never been in the history of colorado that state legislators have been fired by we the people on the recall in midterm. that's what he means about september 10th. >> indeed. [applause] >> i think it's interesting just on the topic of new york city that you have a mayor now that is like a slurpee grabber and might be replaced by the most famous amateur photographer.
we will have more on the future of the political party tonight on c-span town hall. these programs and a variety of topics air live each tuesday, wednesday and thursday from seven to 9 p.m. eastern throughout the congressional recess. republican national committee chairman rights on the rising stars program today on the meeting in boston. we will have that live on c-span this morning at 11:15 eastern canadian alliance for health reform holds a discussion on the public health care system and whether it can handle the disaster either man-made or natural. we will hear about the consequences of budget cuts to the state health departments and the federal and local governments are prepared for future health disasters. that's coming up in about two hours here on c-span2 at 12:15 eastern. now, part of the third annual aspin security forum. the correspondent david sanger speaks to the deputy defense
secretary ashton carter about the future of the pentagon and this is an hour. >> thank you very much, walter, thank you, ash for joining us and letting us go through the hardship of leaving 97-degree weather in washington to come out here. if you don't mind since you have that nice little house if we stay the month or next month, do you? it's wonderful to be here with ash carter, deputy secretary of defense, an old friend. many, many years. i won't say how many. and somebody told me that he first came out to the aspen institute to study charmed particles, and what else were you studying at the time? >> those were the early days of the charm courts.
>> so he asked whether for the first 40 minutes of this he could do a small slide presentation. [laughter] we ask the security team to put a bullet through the projector. so, let's dive right in because we are going to have a fairly broad conversation about where you are in the future of the pentagon and where you are in asia and where you are on the cyber and drones and so forth. we ourselves are at an incredible plight it seems you are rapidly exiting a second and if you believe what we publish in "the new york times" your thinking about exit and more rapidly than you admitted to. you are facing a period of somewhat enforced cuts through
sequester. so i would like to know just as a start how do you manage that other than the civilian headquarters and what are the opportunities and risks, and what in the midst of this to you think we need to be investing in? >> that is our daily preoccupation. and you're right. we are far from washington that the treaty is focus on the budget and that is important because we are undergoing the reduction in the defense budget that is as large and as steep as the post of vietnam reduction and the post cold war reduction so it is very large and consequential. i can get to that later. when you started on the right note. the other transition before us is the transition from the first
9/11 decade that is characterized as you said five of two wars in the two particular places of one particular kind namely counterinsurgency. and also the post-9/11 decade of wrestling with the counterterrorism problem. those were the rich getting and the defining deily preoccupations of all of us that have been as much a part of that as anybody. you can't be any other way when you are in the department of defense and you have the troops at war so i spend an enormous amount of my time in afghanistan and well for some time become of the fact that we have some more people at the same time you know and we all know that era is coming to an end, and that we need to turn our mind now and our eyes from that set of
problems to the opportunities and the challenges that are going to define our future. and that is a titanic transition that we are trying to make the department of defense under go. so what does that mean? first of all we need to get back to some issues that we have taken our eye off a little bet over the last decade. i think countering the weapons of mass destruction is one of those we want to get back to and we need to get back to the military point of view from areas of warfare where the potential opponents have crept up on us over the past ten years and we need to reinvest and get back on the game and we need to do more things and counterterrorism. but we also have some opportunities, too.
some huge opportunities. and the biggest one in front of us you mentioned is to shift the institution that has been focused for the intellectually and physically for ten years on iraq and afghanistan to the part of the world that is going to more than any other define the american future and that is the asia-pacific theater and you will see that happening now in terms of troops and you will see it in terms of aircraft and in terms of shifts and investments made to that important theater and the virginia class submarine and their tactical aircraft and the electronic warfare and some space and other things that we don't talk about because we have to take people by surprise and
that is just the military dimension of the shift with our alliances there we are reinvigorating our alliance with japan which everybody knows china is a rising military power. well, japan is a rising military power also. south korea. the countries of southeast asia. our old friends like australia and thailand over to india which is a national security partner for the united states for a variety of reasons. so we are trying to turn our attention to the asia-pacific theater. so this is the kind of strategic transition we are trying to manage at the same time having this enormous budget reduction. look at the new capabilities and problems i mentioned a number of
them but one of great importance is cyber and we are making new investments in cyber as well. so all in all this is a moment in the history of your department of defense not seen since the wall fell in 1989 in terms of the need to do things differently and we do understand that. more importantly they want us to spend it better and smarter and we understand that and we also understand that the country needs us to shift our attention away from iraq and afghanistan and so forth. the first line 11 decade which i think one of the themes of this meeting will be the next decade is going to be different from the first in many ways. >> let me pull on one string that you described on the cyber and we will have general
alexander coming up later. he has nothing to explain these days. but along the way, one of the new initiatives that you have put in place with him or what he described in the congress recently as 40 new cyber teams working under the cyber command which is the military side of his job he said 27 of them more for defense, 13 were for offense and this comes before we even had much of a discussion at least a general public discussion about whether we want the department of defense in the offensive cyber business. just before we have that discussion and so forth, so tell us a little bit about what the cyber team source of us to do and what the mission is, how much all of this costs, whether it is expensive for inexpensive compared to the other things that you are doing and how you get that conversation going on the offensive cyber?
>> it's terribly important and i divide the mission of cyber in the department of defense the first piece and by far and away the most important piece for us is to defend our own networks. the integrity of our own networks because for any of you that know how we operate, everything we do depends upon these informations systems including ones that are connected to the internet. since ten years ago you wouldn't have seen it except at a brigade level command post and the company command post. it consists of eight or ten screens and they are chatting.
they are getting intelligence product and they're getting information of the units around them are doing. and if we lose that, we think about what we would do in that instance and we think about what we call operating through the loss of our connectivity but it's not good if it happens to protect the integrity of the networks of the varying interest and we can get back to that later. the second thing that you mentioned, which is to develop and deploy and do the intelligence preparation for our own a cyber capability on the part of others. i will tell you of some of the tricky issues are with that. the new field of warfare.
and obviously we want to do things we try to do always in a way that is unlawful and the population can support and that is consistent with our values and the tricky things that come into cyber or privacy obviously so that isn't so much an issue on the offensive side you take them enemies information system will only have the consequence of disrupting and not the wider consequences. you have to understand what the consequences are of your action. the authorities to do that, obviously these are the kind of things that a serious enough that they reserve for the president and so you are right. we have fought these through and it's fair game for the conversation. the third thing we do is play a
role in defending the nation's networks. i say our role because we don't have to leave for that. we support law enforcement and homeland security. said janet napolitano, bald -- robert miller. we try to support them. the support is the national security agency which obviously we manage. but that is a capability that i'm responsible for on behalf of all of these other agencies of government in use at. we use the technical capability there. that is where the 40 teams are. they are new and they are in addition to the site for work force that is oriented toward cyber intelligence collection.
and what we are trying to do is create another set of people also associated with nsa and cyber, whose mission is a defense, development of key devotees for the u.s. military and in the defense of the nation to be the last thing i will close on if it is the defense of the nation as you participate in an icy some of the names it's very important and the governments can help and need to help but another thing that has to happen is many of the civil networks are so purely protected themselves that it is very difficult for us to claim that we come to their aid. they need to be protected themselves and that gets to a much bigger problem in the society and that is that cybersecurity is under invested.
there is a market failure in the cybersecurity field and those of you have companies to try to market products for cybersecurity is a hard slog to a lot of people don't want to spend a lot of money and acknowledge if they have a problem and so a lot of our critical businesses are more mobile than they should be and what should happen is they should take the steps to harden themselves and that's more important and thus rendering a which is prepared to do as we defend the rest of the country to lead >> it sounds to me closest to the mall but maybe it isn't of special operations so you have a highly trained group. we talked to thousands of people spread among the teams.
>> i'm starting that we almost because we are drawing people in from the services that we already have. this, like special operations people, are hard to find and hard to grow. it's a -- it requires a lot of talent and a considerable amount of experience and we have to worry whether we train how long do we keep them before they go off to the company's and so forth. so we are taking the people and a slowly growing the new people that we need. that is the management strategy.
i would take a different approach on the road and do things more like besso -- socom malveaux because we need to get started. we've got to get going. you mentioned money. this isn't a money problem for me. this is a management problem. fundamentally we are spending everything we can think about spending intelligently for notwithstanding the budget hassles because this is an area that we are protecting even as other military capabilities will be cut. >> we discuss money. so let's turn to the sequester. a year ago you and i were talking about the sequester and said two things. first, i don't think it's going to happen. and second, i don't want to plan for it happening because if the word gets out that you are planning for it happening then
you are making it easy to happen. you may have added to that we believe to i can't believe that we would do anything quite this dumb. so what has happened a year later? >> the first part is right i can't believe we would do something so dumb. the second part, not quite. the difference between planning and doing. it turns out to be easier than you might think. the plan for the sequestered because by its nature it gives you very little choice. you have to cut here and here by this much. so there is less planning than there might be if you were just told take that cut and do whatever you want with it which i would love but we don't have that kind of flexibility. so we were ready but i wouldn't
take action until it became clear that the budget collapsed at the end of the year. and that is because of the things that we do under the sequester are harmful and i wasn't going to do anything harmful to our defense until it became clear, and again any man or woman wouldn't think that we would actually topple off of this clef but i didn't want to begin doing harmful things and these are not harmful things entel gentry first. so we were ready but we didn't begin taking the management action until the deal collapsed. let me tell you why those were so difficult to deal with. now mind you we are doing our very best everyday to do the
best we can buy or defense given these circumstances. we are trying very hard to get through this and get a sensible result and let me tell you why things work out so badly. the budget has three pieces. it has three people, it has an operating budget and it has investment. let's start with the people. we want to take money out of those. i can't take money out of people just like that because i can and voluntarily separate people in uniform, but it turns out it costs me almost as much to put them on the path to the involuntary separation over the course of a year as it costs to just pay them so you don't save any money in the process of separating people. so, what a company might do faced with a budget cut is dramatically shift people.
that isn't something that we were able to do. therefore, the bill falls into these other operations and the investment. what do we do there. there you say i have to take it off the table and i can't short the people who are at war in afghanistan and i can short the nuclear deterrence. the need to keep flying and so forth. so there are a number of things you take off the table and again the bill gets squeezed into the best. so what happens as a result the kutz end up not spread out over our entire defense budget but
bolten to a few areas. and the area, the two areas that are the most painful our training, readiness, and civilian people who are getting furloughs which is a terrible thing to do. let's take the first one first. let's take an air base. at an airbase they are open and have guards at the gate and people in the tower and in the fire truck and the lights are on. so all that and you are spending the money for all that. where can you stop spending money quickly? painting the buildings, mo ballan less often, that kind of thing. but importantly, you stop training. and when you stop training, you stop readiness. we are protecting the units we know are going to afghanistan. we are protecting training for the units that would be fight
tonight god forbid we ever had a war ann curry dessel we are protecting the units that are most likely to find themselves in combat. but for others you can't afford to train them and that is risky because if something does happen, those units will not be ready to be and then we get to the civilian personnel part which is the fact that a week ago the furloughs began and i know many of you don't track that and are far from washington now but in fact we had 800,000 civilians in the department of defense and they are not people that work in washington mostly. they are people that six airplanes and six ships and do other essentials things. they've had their pay frozen for three years, and they have had a hiring freeze and now we are taking a fifth of their paycheck in the last quarter of the year is causing many of them to change their family plans and
not do things that they had hoped to for their kids and so forth. so it is a miserable way to treat people. and i took to the audiences and i say i don't know why you put up with us accept i do know that they are there for the mission. they care about defending the country otherwise they tell us to go to hell and leave. but daycare and they are dedicated and they don't deserve this kind of treatment. so these are the kind of things that happen as a result of cuts that are very steep and very fast. now, if we had more time to take cuts like the cuts we've already taken, we approach that strategically and say what things don't we need any more that we can phase out? what kind of keep a devotees don't we need anymore and we get all of -- ret of the old and start buying the new like cyber. but the sequestered at least in the short term really frustrates
us. >> musette a year ago or six months ago the debt -- if you were putting money on the table now excluding that with your salaries that will be left off the table, you probably have to bet that the sequester has another year to it and that it will get extended out. >> i am afraid that you are right. >> so this will become the new normal for you and how does that change? >> well, right now you are absolutely right. we are taking very seriously the prospect that this craziness is going to continue. that is the path of least resistance in the political system. if a deal cannot be put together by the congress that can be approved by both houses of congress which requires the president can sign, then we will drift into next year with some continuation of what we have had this year. our responsibility is to be
prepared as we prepare for other eventually these. looking forward you ask could this go on? we started about four months ago in an effort to be prepared for exactly that the president's budget has further cuts for us to meet the objective of deficit-reduction. but the phase in gradually, which as i said at a management point of view is the sensible way to do this because i can do sensible things over time. i can't shift people over time i just can't do it in one year. so that, we can handle. that is one scenario. but i don't know that the president's budget is going to be approved. but its july. you don't see a whole lot of forward motion. we are looking at a number of scenarios of to the possibility that this does become the new normal and our budget is to simply cut and stays low for a period of time and we are again
preparing for that and we are going to do our best to make this strategic transition which is a paramount thing. get rid of the things we don't need as fast as we can. get new things to treat our people as recently as we can recognizing that we are going to have to shed people. >> i didn't make it until a little bit late last night but i did hear that some of the discussion, the senior officials in the air force yesterday the presentation, this is a suggestion of one reason that he might not do a no-fly zone around syria you simply couldn't afford it under these circumstances. >> we would need fundamental funding which is normal for the new contingency. so this is a concept where you had money to the defense department when you have some
need which is a sensible thing to do which there is no reason for us to have that money if we are not going to be using the units that are concerned or something. hurricanes, we had a bad hurricane about once every three years. well, you can give us the money to be ready for hurricanes every year, but then we wasted two out of three years. that isn't very sensible. what is sensible is you don't give that money all the time and then you get extra money when something extra needs to be done. that is the concept that we have applied to the war in iraq and afghanistan. to the readiness in the persian gulf, to the operation in the horn of africa and so forth. it makes perfect sense when you have new temporary things that cost money. >> if we ask you to briefly put
on your political science hat as if you were back in your last job at harvard, something has changed in the political culture. in the post 9/11 years, the hawks in congress always outvoted the budget cutters in congress. when i was the white house correspondent for the times, we hear president bush say i'm going to give my generals whenever they say they need which one might argue isn't necessarily a position as the commander of chiefs could take but you have heard the line very often. now even with president bush's own party but even some degree to your party, what you are hearing is budget cutting first here and defense second. is this just a function of how many years have gone since 9/11? is their something fundamentally at work and what is it that has changed in this debate?
>> a couple things, first of all it's very noticeable. there was always a solid center of opinion that supported the defense that you could count on. and much less so now and few reasons for that. there are few reasons for that. one is one that you mentioned that we have a competing priority. and unfortunately, the part of the government spending that has been most publicly easy to get to has been discretionary spending. now of course there's revenues and there is entitlement also. those are the three parts of the federal budget. but, much harder from the public
will point of view to get to the second to and a lot of the cutting has fallen on the discretionary expenditures and the homeland security and all of the other agencies of the federal government. so that's one thing. the other thing is time has passed. they are tired of afghanistan. they are tired of iraq. i pay a lot of attention to them that you don't see afghanistan the headlines all the time as it used to be. >> exactly. people are tired of it. and then there is a loss that is particularly true for the counterterrorism effort. and that is this, the better we are the less people will notice what you're doing. every time i get dispirited by the fact that people don't seem to pay enough attention and care
enough about the national defence, the international security, i control myself with the following thought that if we are doing our job well, people get that in the morning, they get to go to work and take their kids to school and live their lives and dream their dreams without having to worry about the physical security. what a gift that is. look around the world. there are a lot of people around the world that don't have that. and securities like oxygen, as we often say, if you have it coming you don't think about it can be damned if you don't have it, it's all you can think about. we would like to be in the former circumstance. and that this kind of a paradox that's very important in the counterterrorism effort. we are a part of the inslee of the theme of this meeting of an important mission of the defense department to read that kind of balance of getting enough public support to do what needs to be done but not scaring people.
the president said something really with the tang in a speech that he gave on counterterrorism a few months ago when he said at this point fighting the fight and learning what we learned, we can proceed not only on the basis of fear that hard-earned wisdom coming and we do. we have learned a lot over the past ten years. we have got a lot better and that is the foundation upon which we build now. >> you briefly mentioned after wikileaks happened, and i was involved in some of the times' coverage on this and was pretty distantly you were asking a lot of people the question how can you download 250 documents from the state department and no one is going off and the recollection is that your old boss, bob gates had the question of publicly and privately.
then mr. snowden comes along with the documents of a higher level of sensitivity than what was in wikileaks. so tell us as he looked at it what do you think happened and why was the people to happen, and secondly, since you mentioned before the end networks hauer you changing your practices making the assessment of how much damage is done. >> we are assessing the damage and right now the damage is very substantial. and i only give it to snowden himself because that is a criminal investigation involved and so i cannot talk about that. but to the issue it goes back to what i said. job number one has to be defending our own networks and this is a failure to defend our own networks. and it's not outsider packing in. it was an insider. anybody that has networks knows that the inside track is an
enormous one. and this failure originated from the to practices that we need to reverse. the first is that in an effort for those in the intelligence community plo to share information one for one another there is an enormous amount of information concentrated in one place. that is a mistake. so, we normally compartmentalized information for the very good reason so that one person can't compromise a lot. loading everything onto a server, people in their own compartment, living on the server creates a security risk of the compartmentalization.
>> it is not a surprise to me but it's something we can't do because it creates too much in front information in one place. his given very substantial authority to access that information and move that information. that ought not be the case either. so we are acting to beavers both of those things. it's quite clear that those are the two root causes of this. what do you have to do about that? you have to compartmentalize and you have to have a system which i would like into the longstanding system for the nuclear weapons. we have no loan zones and we have the rule we go after barksdale and walk around the apron and see a red line as you cross the red line you get shot because there are areas that
you're simply not to be. the proximity to the nuclear weapons is too sensitive and momentous of a thing to be allowed for individuals. there is always some out there and some individuals out there and you have to recognize that fact. so, when it comes to nuclear weapons, we watched people's behavior in a special way. we don't put people all by themselves do anything. nobody ever touches the nuclear weapon by him or herself. there are always to people waited in the same specialty. so everybody can see and understand exactly what is being done to that within. it's been that way for decades. here we had a case where a single person had one installation and the intelligence community could have access to and move that much information. so they are a mistake that have to be corrected.
>> for the budget cutting in the program speech president obama announced about a month ago the next big step that he envisions is bringing the american arsenal down to just above the nuclear weapons. but he added to that they had to be done in concert with the russians and getting similar cuts through all kind of issues around that. almost the next day you heard president putin pretty well reject this approach. for your long study of this in the defense project that you have learned in office what would be the risk of doing this unilateral and if you are not going to get the agreement to this, would the united states be less safe with a thousand
weapons against the current russian arsenal? and how do you deal with the russian concern about the mullen nuclear weapons of increasing precision? >> you're right. the president did say that we are prepared to make the reductions below the start level in the nuclear arsenal but he had the intention of seeking them in parallel or in tandem with russia. you are right what he said namely that the russians have some concerns that would need to be addressed in the course of that negotiation and i will get back to what they are. i think the fundamental point is coming you know, david, we are not going to attack ourselves
with our own nuclear weapons. so, the value of reducing them -- what we are after is protection, right? so if there is value in reductions in the goal to get russian reduction, the goal more widely iran, stop proliferation, control the fissile materials more closely, that is what we want because those weapons and those materials might be used against us. so if our own reductions can be a catalyst for nuclear security more broadly, that is a good thing and that is what the president wants. and you miss that opportunity if you just do it yourself. >> as a cost basis would save you considerably to decommission another third? >> you may be surprised to know
the nuclear weapons don't actually cost that much. our annual spending for nuclear delivery systems is about $12 million a year of around 5:25 on the budget. another four for the command and control system that goes with the nuclear weapons and their radar warning and the special communications to make sure the president can retaliate under any circumstances especially if we are attacked first. so it isn't a big swinger of the budget. the reason you do it is because they don't cost that much and they are the most awesome and terrible inventions of humankind
to a high in a physicist as you mentioned, and we always felt there was some responsibility that went with having created this technology. so they are things always to remember part of our arsenal that deserves our most careful thought and treatment and response devotee. but they are not the answer to the budget problem. they are not that expensive to disconnect at the beginning we talked about afghanistan. and you said you have to stay focused on that because we are still there. we know that there is an increasing debate within the administration about what some call the zero option, the reflection that the end of 2014. could you pull out every one? there are down sides to this. one keeping forces there is not only the trip wire for afghanistan, but to have forces
in place in pakistan. tell us where this debate stands. is the zero option in your mind a real option? is it more of a negotiating position which some have argued? can you imagine the situation that we did in iraq and the situation that we do in afghanistan? >> answer the question by backing up for a moment and where are we in this whole afghanistan which many people have kind of forgotten about now the plan laid out in chicago, what ever it was, a year and a half or so ago is that we were going to wind down our presence in afghanistan, and that is the coalition would and the afghan forces got stronger and stronger. the idea being that as we went
down, they would come up in such a way that the some of our power and afghan power would be greater than the enemy's power of insurgency. and that's the plan, that is the path we are on and we are winding down at the same time the afghan forces are winding up. and the afghan forces come for those of you that track this are upwards of 300,000 now. these are not just vanilla infantrymen any more. the year beginning to get more and more capability over time. all coming essentially all of the missions and afghanistan are now led by afghans. and so that is the whole objective is that we wind down afghanistan and eventually becomes capable of life itself defending itself. now, that can't happen for some time, which is the reason to do it gradually.
the next one the president hasn't made a decision yet about exactly how to wind down and where. part of the reason is that depends upon what afghanistan does. and it needs to build up its forces so that it can compensate, number one. and number two, if we are going to have the forces we have to have an agreement that covers them, which has not been concluded yet and which we have to have an order to stay so there are a lot of different variables to this. mauney view, david come and i have been at this now for four and a half years and i mean every little detail of what we do is to say that from the purely military point of view in terms of having the capability to maintain the afghan state and level of peace and stability in
the afghan state, that is within reach. that is a hard earned thing. many americans died, wounded. having is within reach but it depends on other things. it depends on afghanistan. it depends by the way on pakistan. so there are other variables. but from the purely military point of view i think it is within reach and i do not say that lightly because believe me, i've spent a lot of time there and working on the problems and the issues there. you have to because your heart has to be in it because our people are there. >> do we read that as a possible leavitt if you couldn't get that bilateral agreement you might be able to live with this zero option? >> that's for sure we have said that we need the bilateral security. does not having a bilateral
security agreement and therefore not having a joint plan between the afghan government and the coalition after the end of 2014 not a good thing? no, it's not a good thing because it will disrupt the stability to achieve this result. as i said, it was in reach. but that isn't entirely within the president's purview. we need afghanistan as a partner and we need our coalition partners. so there is a whole issue in afghanistan that we haven't talked about. >> what about the audience here and ask you to ask your questions quickly and we will start with jane. there is a microphone coming to you. >> thank you for sharing your enormous talent. first a question to you.
marrec who is the chief of staff of the air force didn't say last night that we couldn't do the mission if asked the no-fly zone over syria. he said with less resources he would have to figure out how to get it done with less. my question to you is congress is incapable of doing things these days. but it can do small things. why isn't it at least reasonably easy to ask the congress to give you the authority to apportion the cuts where you need to apportion them and if the question continues for ever, which it may if you had that authority marcus said it and you just said that you could live with that and build a smaller dod, but you could build it intelligently. and so if you agree with that, why isn't a huge effort being made by the administration to
build a coalition in the congress to change the sequester just in that way? >> that is a good question and by the way, i can see you here. this is somebody that knows all about all this stuff i'm talking about. great to see you. with respect to the questions of the flexibility, what we really need is time. that's what we really need it. and i will give you an example of why. remember i talked about people? over time we can reduce the force. but we can't do it quickly. it's first of all not feasible for us to do that. if you take a service member and in voluntarily separate him or her, they go through a process. it takes time. they are entitled things in the course of that and so forth so you can't just snap your fingers and reduce the size of the forced it now if we can do it and we are prepared to the the
reality is it takes time. so that is what we really need is the time to do this strategically and intelligently. having yet another year next year like next year where you suddenly have to take a large amount of money leans to the kind of twisted results that you see what the sequester in the first year. so what we really need is time and so if there were a budget deal of the kind, there are other possibilities out there but the kind the president has laid out, which is cuts. but it stays over time. i realize not everybody has agreed to the president's plan.
but something like that that comes over time, that is the kind of flexibility that we need to do this strategically and intelligently. if we are hit again in 2014i can tell you again we are getting ready for it and we will be prepared. but it's not what you ought to -- its not what you what to expect. it's not a good way to send the taxpayers' money to do it it it's too many perverse consequences of doing it this way. ..
i can't go to the war in afghanistan because i can't have people over there, stop sending in fuel and food. as i said i can't cut the nuclear deterrent. i can't cut the president airplane. i have to go where the money is. that's what is perverse about. and that's true no matter whether i move things around or not. so we really need the time to do things strategically. >> thank you, mr. secretary. you work with us in the past, thank you. if one moves one strategic forces to a theater, or increases capital production with respect to those forces, typically once adversaries or potential adversaries are unaware that.
what then is the advantage to publicly announcing a shift or pivot to the asian theater? went so far the only visible results have been jeter in europe, in the mideast, and bellicose response in asia. why not just do it and keep quiet about it? >> okay, well, you have to parts of the. one is that we're talking about doing, and the other is there's no valley and talking. we are doing. we are moving equipment. we are moving forces. we are making, we are moving money around in our investments, as i mentioned earlier, to invest in things that are especially useful for the theater. there will be more u.s. forces in the asia-pacific theater in just a, then there has been in years. why? because they have been in iraq
and afghanistan. so there is more happening there. why are we there in the first place? in the big picture what are we doing? the asia pacific theater is one in which that has enjoyed peace and stability for basically, for decades now. and it's done that even though the wounds of world war ii never healed. there's no nato an issue. there's no security structure there. and the critical factor that has kept peace and stability in east asia for decades has been the american military presence there. that is what allows first japan to rise and prosper, in south korea to rise and prosper, and southeast asia to rise and prosper. and today, china and india to
rise in profit. that's fine. and that's, that has been welcomed by the united states. it is economically welcomed obviously by the united states, but it has a critical in agreement in that peace and stability has been our pivotal military threat in the region, and our allies which anchor that. that's a good thing and we want to keep going. and it's about that role that we play in east asia, a place where the animosities run deep, where people argue over rocks in the ocean, where as i said the wounds of world war ii in the earlier part of the last century have never healed. and we would like to continue to play our stabilizing role there. that is not aimed at anyone. it's not picking a fight with anyone. it's not a concept of deterrence or anything like that. it's to continue to play that
stabilizing role. and we have not been able to play the to extend we had in previous decades, over the last decade, because we've been so involved in iraq and afghanistan. so we want to get back to the role that america has played in that region for a long time. now, it's important that people know that, to get your point, because it's important for people understand what we're doing, why we're doing it, to understand first of all that our alliances are strong and we stand behind our alliances. second, that we are not picking a fight with anyone. we are not trying to militarize a situation there. we would like what has been happening in decades past to keep going. democracy has been spreading across -- prosperity has been spreading to a huge economic and political development and a part of world without any conflict at all. so that's the fight that we have on the pivot and that's why we're doing it and that's why
we're saying what we're doing. nobody it's the wrong idea by the duty provided the of why we're doing it spent we only had a couple of minutes left and mechanical of our time because the to the invoke year is they put us on planes and send us back. we will take two questions. kimberly and no here. we'll take a cu key and then you can pick which one you're answering. >> you mentioned that the cyber offense and defense teams are almost ready to go. weeks or months before their operational? could you give us more detail? secondly, you mentioned two things that you want to see changed to keep more stone election happen in the future. how fast can you bring that about? >> then there was one question over there. >> maurice sonnenberg, thank you for leaving academia and coming back to the government.
my question goes to sequester, i would like you to talk little bit about adversary, meaning china, the others, in terms of their expenditures and what it means in terms of the bandages they will a crew in the future, for example, in one little place, you mentioned nuclear. our arsenal is, well they say, 50%, may be obsolete. talk about that. >> let's see, first of all, soon and now. so soon for the cyber force. the germs of these have existed, as i said come in the services anyway and we're trying to reach out and get people who already have the skill set in print and together. spirit and they will report up to general alexander? >> correct.
and then the second part is when are we taking counter measures? the answer is now. maurice knows a lot about this, by the way, does a lot of work on behalf of of intelligence for the united states, which is much appreciated, maurice, you're right, the international perception of sequester and our budget drama, i worry about a great deal. this is something that makes us look like we are indeed willing ourselves, and, therefore, disheartens our partners and friends and allies. and it's something that could potentially embolden, you know, those who might commit aggression. so it is, it is --
>> who do you have in mind? >> the usual suspects. [laughter] and so it is important that we put in context. this is an unfortunate thing we're doing to ourselves. on the other hand, we're trying to do our best to manage through it. if we had a little time, or after we've had a little time to adjust we will be fine. this is not a cataclysm for american defense. this is not a wholesale retreat from our alliances and our military capabilities, and nobody should get that impression. it's not a good way to run things. is not a good way to spend taxpayers money, but we will get through this. and we will keep our eye on what our priorities are, and we will eventually make that strategic transition, which as i said, we have to make. it will be slower, it will be less graceful but we will do it anyway. at least there's no doubt about that. so those things are true.
it's a bad thing to be doing torso's. i have foreign counterparts to me, what the hell is going on? believe me, it's hard to explain. but at the same time they need to understand that we are going to remain very strong indeed, and as we turn the investment that we been making in iraq and afghanistan to other things, they will see them showing up. they will see them showing up in the cyber era and electronic warfare area, and many other areas that they will see and that they won't see. and it's important that message got across. >> ash, thank you. we could do this for the next hour or two but we've got to let others on the stage. thank you much. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]
>> during the last our president obama announced that the u.s. is scrapping joint u.s.-egypt military exercises scheduled for next month. saying the american cooperation with egyptian government cannot continue when civilians are being killed in the streets. he directed his national security team to see what additional steps the u.s. might take going forward. more than 500 people are dead, and thousands injured after clashes between the military backed interim government and supporters of ousted president mohammed morsi. republican national committee chairman reince priebus unveils the rising stars program today in boston. that's expected to get underway shortly live on c-span and about, in a few minutes at
11:15 a.m. eastern. >> he wrote about the experience for harvard magazine. we will talk with him about the meat industry today at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> up next, a panel of intelligence analysts look at future robust security threats and how to prevent them. from the aspen security forum in july, this is just over one hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. my name is dina temple-raston and i'm the counterterrorism correspondent for national public radio. i hope you had a nice lunch, and
our panel today is sort of the crystal ball panel. we've been asked to look into the future and identify threats coming down the road and what we can do as a country to prevent them. among other things were going to take look at whether not terrorism will continue to be a first order concern or whether it will return to more of what was before 9/11. and whether it will just become something that we keep an eye on while we focus on other things. so let me start by introducing our panel. we have pictures of interesting are across the board. mathew burrows and i decide not to wear a blue place just to shake things up a little bit. mathew burrows is counselor at the national intelligence council, known as the nic. it put out a very interesting report that i recommend to you called global trends 2030. which we will be discussing more in a minute. it provide some fodder for those of you who are wondering about
threats in the future, what we don't cover here you might able to see in the report. sitting next to him is john mclaughlin, the former acting and deputy director of the central intelligence agency. is now at johns hopkins. saving to his left is charles allen. i think most of you know him. he was former undersecretary of homeland security for intelligence and analysis, and a fixture as i said in the intelligencintelligence communi. i talk to him many times over the years and is now at the chertoff group. last but not at all these is maurice sonnenberg, and he is the co-chairman of the national commission for the review of research and development programs of the united states intelligence community. so we've got people who are well-qualified to discuss this. i thought we would start with you. in the nic's global threat 2030, one of the games is about
individual empowerment. largely positive force that is helping foster political and economic interests around the world. but the paper also makes the point that the growing individual empowerment opens up and doors box of new and heightened security threats. could you lay out that argument for us, please? >> you know, this work is an effort to it look out 15, 20 years in the future. and its use as a planning document. so it's not trying to predict exactly what is happening at its the framework. of which is very interesting you have a number of trends which i would say on come in those cases are going to be very positive. and actually i think improve the security for the u.s. and the security environment. but there's also this, you could say underside to it. so the trends are, one thing is this rapid emergence of a middle-class, really rapid
economic growth that may be a little tempered now going forward, but still unprecedented really in world history. and you have as part of that really this individual empowerment which part of this is women's roles is really growing into workplace all around the world. you have the collapse of the really gender gap in terms of education and health. that's all part of this issue. and it's going on not just in china or india where we here, but i do in all regions of the world. at the same time he also have come and this is part of that bigger story is the access to technology. and a lot of these technologies, the cyber ones, bio and so one which we see as secret really to improvements in the world, and have been on balance, are also ones that individuals can use for very lethal and very harmful
purposes and if they want to. [inaudible] >> well, obviously i mean, the terrorism, we give an example in 2030 of you could ask or think about terror that becomes sniper care. that is at this point something that they have begun to do in big ways. we could see a lot of confluence of criminal networks with terrorists, then you have this access to really not only doing very physical damage but also bringing down infrastructure and doing a huge amount of destruction. bio is also a huge issue, how you could be creating almost in your backyard very lethal diseases and viruses that have potential, huge potential for destruction. so you have this case of really a diffusion of power.
so individuals have come in most cases, the ability to do far more good and really push along these improvements, or you have also their ability to really give i was on a level of the state and that we haven't seen before. this makes it hugely difficult. now you are having to track individuals, small groups, just not state sponsored terrorists, which was more of what we were thinking, you know, several decades ago. but now you're actually having to think about all these different possible threats. >> [inaudible] >> yes. if you look income you know, we publish every year the dni does an annual threat assessment every year. you will notice if you go back five, six years that we don't talk much -- as much about
individual to lone wolf. but in the last year, year before that, much more about the lone wolf case. it makes it much more, it's a much more complex security environment. >> the start of brothers who could be seen as a lone wolf case as people went to pakistan to train and then come back speak with yes. they can do this through the internet. they can get the tools they need, but you can see this communal, the tsarnaev case could be a low-level in the future with a lot more very readily accessible technology. >> let me go further and go down the line to see what each of you believe is sort of the existential threat that you see out there, sort of the two or three top threats that you see out there against the united states. and perhaps have you respond --
perhaps obvious to respond to the. >> that's a tough question because they're so many issues on the table. you don't have to list them for this very sophisticated audience, but if i were thinking about priorities, i would always approach in terms of concentric circles and i would draw circles and put the most important things at the innermost circle and then the circles out would contain issues of declining importance but still importance. so in the innermost circle what do you put? to me the calculus has always been one of the things that threaten the lives of americans, the physical security of our country, or our armed forces in combat. that has to always be kind of number one. so that hud things like terrorism -- we'll come back to that, i'm sure -- weapons of mass destruction, of all kinds including intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons that can reach us.
cyber, which has been talked about a number of times before because of its potential to have an impact on all of our lives in so many ways. goes the next circle out, still on your issued a threat, i would come here if it's debatable. everyone in the room will have their own way to do these circles. next circle i would probably put regional crises as major threats. >> for example? >> the middle east right now, i can't imagine, there's a time in my lifetime we've seen a level of turmoil and danger and unpredictability in the middle east as we see now. the arc from, let's to start with iran and move, that's not quite the middle east but the whole art from iran across the lavont and across north africa is in there is states of turmoil.
and pick out a couple of examples, iran, probably before we meet again in the security forum. i would say there's a 75-80% chance that issue will have come to a head, if you just look at netanyahu's red line. he recently sort of clarified that to say, if they get to 250 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium, that's my red line. little ambiguous about that but that's how i read his comments. well, my calculations based upon what i can see in the open source material is iranians are only about 68 kilograms short of a red line now. they have 140 some kilograms and had 9000 centrifuges they can operate. that issue will come to a head in the midst of the greatest turmoil we have seen in the middle east in our lifetimes. i'm sure we'll come back to that, but just another one, syria. wouldn't surprise me if syria
were to break up as a result of what's going on there now. had my students this year to papers and so you're looking at to the question of what will a post-assad to look like? and uniformly, the conclusion was if assad falls we'll see more sectarian wars. that will go on. so regional crises. next circle out i would probably put big important countries that have uncertain issues. china, possibly the, china for example, we could talk about in greater detail, but new leadership there. very different than the last leadership. i would say china has the potential to surprise us in a lot of ways. for the first time in a that i've been looking at china, i think there is a plausible chance of some instability. that's not something i would've said five years ago. come back to that if you want, and russia, a lot of issues there. the next circle out i would probably put countries that
don't like us very much. north korea would be there. they recently demonstrated the capacity to launch a missile and separate three stages to put a satellite in space, but that is in essence an icbm capability. perhaps without good guidance and all of the niceties that come with an icbm as we know it, and intercontinental missile, but nonetheless that was their last attempt to do this when they can only get two stages in to space. very hard to do that with a missile. you've got to get the stages to separate, the right altitude, not burn up, achieved orbit, all of that. so there's that. and next circle out probably big trends that cut across all of these things. technology, some the things that mat has written about in his 2030 paper, a burgeoning population growth to get the look out over the next 30 years, the world was increased
certainly by 2040 or 2050 to 10 billion people and only 3% of that growth is projected to take place in the developed world. think about that for a minute. that means that we're going to have a lot of unemployed young people in megacities around the world, right for all kinds of recruitment for extremists that will come back to terrorism i'm sure. if i were sort of listing the threats, doesn't think how i would rate him at this point. >> so you still put terrorism and the first order of? >> it may not be the number one but in my judgment, an idea of settling and not always articulated in our country but sort of settling in, that that. and her history and history of conflict is coming to an end. the president didn't quite say that in his speech but that was a big way for a lot of people.
i'm thinking of want, having spent some time in the cold war, what the soviet personality leon trotsky, many years ago, long before i was at the cia -- [laughter] is alleged to have said that you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. so changes in terrorism, i think we should be focusing on what's changing in terrorism, not whether there's an endpoint, not whether it's, what are the changes? i think they are so transformational as to compare plausibly with a transformational effect of the berlin wall coming to in the broader view of political spirit. were talking about the narrow sphere of terrorism. just pick out three trends. first, the battlefield is changing. we have battled terrorism around
the world but the central arena in our decade past has been iraq and afghanistan. and with our drawdowns and departure in iraq, we're not going to have the same granular insight into those countries that we once did. now, perhaps terrorist will choose them to use them as operational bases, but it will be harder to know that. and iraq itself is now subject to centrifugal forces that i could again make a plausible case that country could fall apart as well. pair that up with a city falling apart and your reader on the lines in the middle east. second big trend, by the way, hearing myself talk reminds me of bob gates definition of an intelligence officer. he says, that someone who when they smell flowers, they look for a coffin. [laughter] so i'm not giving you just the dark side here, but --
>> negative. >> gets the job of an intelligent person to think about the worst case, perhaps most often minority's aren't. second big trend in terrorism right now i would say is the changing pattern of governance in the area of greatest concern. think about it, these countries which a few years ago were authoritarian countries, we didn't like that but we liked the fact that they have visibility into their streets and society and have some control over it. that wasn't our values but that was in some ways in our interests. now, they've all turned over, and if you again look at that arc that i described before, i think you could make the case that there really are only two countries in that arc from iran and across north africa that have real sovereignty, mean control of the countries out of the pores and those two countries would be iran and
israel. when you ge get past those to wh i'm not countries that have control many of the urban centers. you get outside those urban centers, you've got the world's largest uncovered areas in the world. so bottom line there is i think terrorists now have the largest area of safe haven and operational training that they've had in 10 years. in the third trend, i'll stop. here, is that they are learning. when you attack terrorist, you may destroy some of them but you're not destroying -- you changing them. they adjust, they adapt. they are learning that the harsh treatment that they need out in areas where they hold sway doesn't go over with the population. look at the documents picked up in mali after the french left, picked up in safe houses of al qaeda, and they are in essence self critiques of the fact that we have, we have made a mess of
this by treating the population so harshly, particularly women. we have to learn to treat people with care and provide services for them. that, by the way, is the hezbollah model in lebanon. we are seeing that same pattern in syria. we are seeing it yemen. we're seeing it in al sharia which stretches across north africa. and if they ever learn this lesson, that is, not to be so harsh where they hold sway, we will have more trouble finding and rooting them out in societies. so those three trends i think take us to a point in terrorism where we can't predict the endpoints, but we need to be humble about where this all migrates as a threat. threat. >> push back just a little bit on social services of aqap in yemen. they were very bad at this and ended up taking over these
areas, could provide electricity, couldn't find anything that people wanted so that brought the government official back and said we're not good at this. you should be doing instead. so they are learning a lesson but it's taking them a long time. it's not like they're just going and like hezbollah. >> some of this is the result. for example, in the case of algeria, small group that was one of the groups involved in the benghazi attacks and which is very strong in tunisia and other parts of libya, what they are telling is don't have to the hills and go to militant trading chance to integrate into society. if you're a plumber, be a plumber. if you're a flower salesman, be a flower salesman. come to meetings, work with a te population. i'm not saying this is a full-blown finished product yet, but this trend that we are picking up in a lot of these areas spent charley, what are your big scary threats? >> well, i'm known as a warning officer who always warns
nonlinear black swan's as we call them. and i think the world is, i love what mat said and 2030 trends, it's a great piece of work. they have done this before. and nic, the national intelligence council, but this is the best. at the same time it would be a lot, educators options in the 2030 paper and i think mat has masterminded that. i think they did a magnificent job. i'm not in the worst-case site, but i certainly am not in the best case for where we will be in 2030. when i was an assistant dci for collection, i focused on near-term, what's going up in the next six months to a year, the next, looking at three years was an incredibly hard. we have been inevitably surprised. we were in 1973. i just have spoken at the
richard nixon liber damone how bad our intelligence was and how poorly we perform. 1990, the saddam's invasion of kuwait. i did forecast that but they couldn't find many people that would go a long with the whole idea. two years before 9/11 i was holding daily meetings with the agency and the rest of the intelligence community on al qaeda. with people from every discipline. we were pressing hard, but we really did not do the job. and if we have this kind of attack on the homeland, which, so what i'm trying to say is we are going to get things wrong. and i think john has copperheads was laid out the eccentric circles. the erosion of the nationstate is occurring, but we have that with the destruction of technology, technology better incredibly positive. they internet is such a magnificent thing for good but it's also forbade.
and when you look at i think we'll have a lot of stability, particularly involving around ethnic and religious conflict, and terrorism reaching all the way through the subcontinent over the next couple of years but i think we have to take events that are evolving in syria that are pretty amazing with hezbollah fighters coming in from the valley and serving as a surrogate proxy fighting force during the great job. you have, allegedly, if you believe "the new york times," you know, fighters coming in, intelligence pipes from iran. we have a perfect witches brew evolving in syria, which i think will explode out and affect the entire area. in ways that are detrimental to u.s. interests. johnson our job was to protect u.s. people, and he's right. our job is to keep the country
safe and that means u.s. interest broadly. we just had a major attack in algeria back in january, february, which was, it attracted a bit of attention, you know, 37 hostages killed, three americans. and we sort of forgotten the threats they can evolve rather quickly but it was a rather complex planned attack. i think we'll see more of these discontinuities, and so first i think the erosion of the nationstate and its regional conflict, the spreading of the crisis of terrorism and west africa, north africa, and al-shabaab just recently planned, conducted an attack last saturday and i guess down in somalia where they tried to attack a human group, where they claim can guess what? they claimed they killed americans. that's totally false, but again,
america's interests, american life is very much at stake. and within the concentric circles of course my biggest worry has to do with wmd, with weapons of mass destruction. which we have, we've had three administrations had done a really good job of trying to control, working with allies and people are not allies, controlling materials of all sorts. president clinton, president bush and president obama who have done a great job. but still, we worry very much of loose materials, loose weapons, and given some of the trends in areas, states that have nuclear weapons, and states that have enriched uranium that john talked about. this has to be extremely worrisome, and we should as americans, give a lot of support to the intelligence community. the previous panel, the general
counsel of nsa i thought defended very well the legitimacy and the correctness and legality of what we have been doing, has been the subject of such great concern. so those are great issues. john talked about east asia and china. china, yeah, it's not an enemy. is obviously a major trading partner, but we do have to get right aside the issue with china, which has not been talked about publicly by the director of national intelligence and others. and we have to also get, take it correct which i believe mark wells talked about last night, the whole issue of defense modernization in china. all of which could lead to some real potential abrupt changes over time and in the pacific and asia. we have been so focused on find,
fix and finish, we lost our ability i think to do strategic assessment and warning. i think warning, warning in the digital age when we move at speed is a different world from the warning i did earlier. but i do believe we have to get away from the very tactical analysis and intelligence that we've done for the last several years. and if we do not do this, i think there will be other abrupt discontinuities like the arab spring where, without going into any detail, i don't think the intelligence community really acquitted itself all that well. i think it could have done much better. john didn't -- >> we will talk about in a second. let's set the table then we'll talk about how institutionally you can address some of these issues. there's a huge basket to give already but lots of things and, maurice. is there anything we haven't mentioned that you would add to that? i'm sort of -- pakistan spent that's why i am the last picture. >> you are the cherry on -- yes.
>> i associate myself with everything that's been said that however, i must tell you, i'm always skeptical about studies that tell me 30 years from now. with all due respect i don't think the intelligence community got it quite right when you're talking, or not talk about the collapse of the soviet union. we've had a study that iran would not have the bomb from anywhere for 15 to 20 years. that was done by the day and night a few years ago. so i would rather not look at predictions. also, the question is when you do those predictions with the advent of metadata and what i would call machine data, what are you actually putting in their to get to the conclusion? that's my point on that. now, i'm very pessimistic. i agree. my greatest concern is always been weapons of mass
destruction. we are heading into a period now where we have people who will have atomic weapons. let's call it the rational ones. i would put china and russia into that one. the iranians and the pakistani, depending on how much political turmoil should arise, let's say, in pakistan, i don't consider them a rational players in this. and i believe that we are heading for what i would call a climactic catastrophe. that's armageddon changed a little bit. and that may come sooner. so that predictions are where the economy will be 30 years from now won't matter. all it will take is one of these dramatic attacks, if you will,
whether it's nationstate, hand-off on whatever it is. and remember 20 years ago i made a speech. i met -- a young man in the audience said what is your most, 20 years ago, nuclear attack. i think that that's the thing went to worry about. that does not preclude radioactive bombs, while kim's. the other part -- bio, chem stick the other part i would go into as i am worried about our cyber capability in the future. i think that right now we were ahead of the game but not for long. i mean, the chinese have stolen billions of dollars of our technology, whether it's from our military, whether it's from private industry. i see no secession of that and i have no trust for people who say we should go to the u.n. and have a treaty on cyber.
never happen. if anybody signed the treaty, ike so many other treaties, they would violate it. so my concern is that we are losing our edge. that cyber aspect and looking into the future, quantum. now, we have supercomputers, quantum is a way of being able to take encryption and bring it down to nanoseconds from days. now, the first nation that gets that is going to have a tremendous advantage on us. and so although studies on the other aspects, to me, these are the two areas, i love it, but for the purpose of the time to come these are my two areas i worry the most about. >> let's talk a little bit institutionally, and how in the future institutions in the united states will be able to respond to these kinds of threats. let me just throw out one thing that is sort of a perennial thing we talk about here at the conference, which is the fbi and
whether the fbi is still the best institution to handle terrorism cases. john, what do you think what's is the fbi the best institution? should be go wit within mi5 mod? what do you think? >> handling terrorism and false range of agencies and the fbi has its role to play, and what is implemented of is when nine 9/11 happened and in the subsequent years, that foreign domestic boundary disappeared, except institutionally in the united states. and i think we have more or less -- more or less fixed that with the intelligence community over the last 10 years. so going to your question, and i personally would stick with an fbi mall as opposed to an mi5 model, and part of my feeling about that is there are two parts to. one is that the fbi over the last 10 to 12 years has made it
pretty dramatic progress in terms of its capacity to understand what's going on in the united states. i can say honestly, and bob mueller, the retiring director is someone who took over the agency just a week before nine 9/11, i remember meeting with him and national security team at camp david on september 15 as we try to forget what are the next steps. and bob was at that point at the very front and of transformation of the fbi, trying to understand it. and i think he is brought that on over the past 12 years that he's been the director. that's, my first point is if the fbi is dramatically improved its ability to do what it has to do domestically. the second point is, if you were to try and create an mi5, i think we would have massive institutional chaos.
and societal controversy. listen to the couple of the earlier panels and imagine the headlines about a domestic spying service, which is essentially what the mi5 is in great britain. and it works well there. i think for the united states to go in that direction would be just a step too far, a bridge too far and too complicated in the circumstances i described a little earlier about the changing nature of terrorism and the need for us to kind of keep our gaze up and stay on target. >> i would just like to add to what john said. i think yes, the fbi has certain, i visit it has all the investigative responsibilities on intelligence. it has really responsibility, but as john said, it's one of a number of players domestically. dhs and its operating components and it has a lot of data that's
useful for counting either home-grown extremism or particularly and down. so it's got to be, i would like to see the incoming trekker of the fbi to work harder to make it more open architecture on information sharing between dhs, others, other agencies that fall under dhs. and, obviously, a greater deal of bottoms up work with the police departments and agencies, the 17,000, and it's not just the police but it's the firemen, the sheriffs. it is, we have not completed that architecture. and it's very difficult in our federal, state and local system of government. but we can do better and i look forward to the new director continue to work towards improvements because john pistole who is here in the audience knows that tsa collects a lot of useful information that must be integrated broadly with the u.s. intelligence community,
and with law enforcement at the federal level. >> if i could get back to a point, if i could just come back to the point, the answer to whatever problem we have many encounters and i don't think his institutional. achieving further progress there, and this is where the snowden case comes in as an impediment, achieving progress as a matter of education. that's what it's about, data fusion. if a highway patrolman as doctor, picks up someone who is suspicious and appears to be heading off to do ill coming evil deeds somewhere, and cannot tap into an fbi or cia database to tell that patrolman what some officer picked up in the knockout of cairo, then we have failed. the urge your earlier today for perhaps greater department patient pulls in the other direction at a time when we have achieved pretty dramatic strides in data fusion.
one bad apple here may have set us back spent let me ask a slightly different question and then you can wrap it into your answer. and that is, there's been a lot of talk since snowden about the basra of resurrecting it, the idea of a national security court. is that something that you think we should have in the united states, and national security court that is focused on the the sort of terrorism cases? or should there be a tweak to the fisa court in the way it is structured now so that it is more transparent quacks would we have the same problems if we had a national security court? >> look, a number of the country in the world have special courts that try terrorism. let's say france. france, you have a magistrate and a judge, and all terrorism cases intimate out of paris. then the information is passed over to a regular come you can call it a federal court, but no
juries. they will allow juries in any other case that not terrorism case. there's a quasi-aspect of that. so that there is some value. when i think of them is how we case, the 20th tears tried in virginia, the judge i believe was -- that case went on for four years, am i right? spent god knows how many millions of dollars. he said i'm innocent, medicine. he brought his mother over to say my boy is such a nice boy. finally, he had fired three lawyers and finally he admitted he did it all. now, here's a judge and ensure she is a fine federal judge, but in my opinion you've got to have people who are doing these cases not necessarily the fisa court to the fisa court, that would be a conflict of interest. they're trying cases and issuing warrants to allow search and
seizure. so i would say no, but i just want to get back to the other point. >> could i just say so it is not lying other, i'm not sure moussaoui is an example of how terrorism court works in the united states. i think that a sort of our example of how they work. >> you write. >> the case in detroit, the detroit bomber was a pretty clean case. and that was not necessary a judge who was -- >> well, he settled. he didn't have to go to trial. he took a plea. that's a lot different from a trial. >> but it was very clean. so there are a lot of cleaning terrorism cases aside from moussaoui. please go ahead. >> one point that john bennett, fbi, my fbi, i have a concern about that. the fbi is an institution that looks for evidence and then looks for prosecution. in the scope of promotions in their hierarchy, for example,
putting an fbi agent into a foreign country like the cia uses something called -- that's the top intelligence officer in the various indices. generally many of them i remember a number of years, something like half of them have never even been out of the country. so what happens here is if you're in the middle of the case trying to collect evidence come you do not want the evidence tainted. when you get into that legal aspect of it, i'm afraid that the fbi sometimes moves too far in the prosecutorial and they can go to congress and say look at all the cases. cia, they can't count their success. go along, do their business. now, why would i want to see -- mi5. i rather like it but i know politically it's very hard to
have an mi5. mi5 in case you don't know what has investigative powers but no prosecutorial powers. they collect it and the evidence goes over, and then the english courts been taken over. maybe there's some way of building a chinese wall within the fbi where those fbi agents looked solely at these terrorism cases, can be involved in the prosecution, and perhaps in that way. and the last thing is cooperation. i come from new york city. new york city, i hate to tell you, if you listen to, i won't say the name, but let's say top law enforcement meaning police people to lasting in the the world military is how well the fbi cooperate with them. i've heard it not once but a dozen times, except for one chief of counterterrorism in new york, they all love, but the rest of it. in the last part of that is
something called fusion centers, which is homeland security and joint terrorism task force. one of the complaints you hear about joint terrorism task force, which is the name implies is collecting all these people together. it's not very useful in homeland security. in my own opinion county just close them up to save hundreds of millions of dollars. however, the jttf is good but you get the complaint well, the fbi dominates. they hold information or they don't give information. so that my concern is to get the fbi to work on little more, nothing totally negative about them. they are very good, but these are two areas where i would like to see more work done. spent let's focus on institutions that anyone is focus on recently because of the snowden case and that would be the fisa court. a lot of people talk about transparency in the fisa court. they are people within intelligence community never
trying to figure out ways to abide more information about the fisa court. so we have great brains in the intelligence community here. how could we possibly make a secret court less secret? what would be the transparency? mat, maybe you have some ideas on this, too. >> you know, i think as we talk about this morning, i think this is something that you have to get congress engaged in and have a discussion. i think, if you want to build that legitimacy. >> and you still have, for example, could it be like the fed with a release minutes of the fisa courts after -- >> no. >> why not? >> i don't think you can make a much more transparent. i don't think you can make it much more transparent, and i'll tell you why. we are already, look at this comparatively. what the discussions we've had to today, extraordinary. we would not have been in any other country.
we really wouldn't. we are already the most transparent country in the world when it comes to intelligence. everything from our discussions of the fisa court, the dni's annual testimony in congress which is usually done and quite revealing, i kind of myself. our oversight system. i believe our intelligence community is the most closely overseeing institution in the u.s. government. believe it or not, our congress, for example, gets more substantive product in any parliament in the world, to the extent that when we use material from another country, this is a bit off the subject but it's a larger issue here, transparency. transparency. when we use major from another country, say britain or, let's just use britain as an example, we have to be careful what we show our congress because in all likelihood their parliament
hasn't seen that material. i'm a big supporter of congressional oversight because it connects this arcane business intelligence of the american people in some way. and i support all of this. all i'm saying is we're already very, very transparent. an article i wrote in the foreign policy.com mexico one month ago yesterday, the way i concluded it was to make a prediction. i'll make a prediction here and you can tell me if you come to the floor next year if i'm right. my prediction was that the snowden case and the fisa issue and all of that will stimulate a debate in our country where we will bring out every aspect of what we do and how we do. we've done a lot of that already here this morning. and at the end of that debate, the american public will understand in much greater detail and be much more culpable with all of this, and that's all for the good. but we will continue doing it.
and we will continue doing it perhaps under a modified legal regiment. we will be more comfortable with it and knowledgeable about it, but so will many people in the world who want to know this even more desperately than we do. if you're the average citizen in our country you might look at this and the thought bubble you might have what it's all kind of interesting, i'm glad to note. but you're an intelligence officer and you thought bubble is, how hard do you want my job to be? because this is a competitive game. this isn't patty cake intelligence. you are actually in about with people around the country, around the world for knowledge. and those other folks because of our superior power, one of their weapons is one we don't understand to this is the age of asymmetry. one of their asymmetric weapons to use with us is secrecy.
if we can't find out about them, it helps to cancel out our superior power in many ways, and we have sort of given up on secrecy here. >> i need to catch off. [talking over each other] >> i don't know what death is required for the intelligence community, given where jane harman sat where we had, she sat do not just hundreds but thousands of briefings on the most sensitive activities that we did and they had to market down to the chair or ranking minority member. we did it. and the written responses, we get thousand of written responses to this oversight committees, and we also have to go to the appropriators. and i did that in both my role at cia and at dh as. and it just wasn't much that i can think of much that we did not speak very candidly to in the conference. and also, -- my goodness, we
talked about sources, methods, access is that if compromise could lead to real detriment to our national secure overseas and allies, to american lives, and also people who work for the united states to serve a fascist could interest. i don't know how much further we can go. this moist discussion i found quite disturbing, ambassador and admiral blair speak quite candidly. >> let me just, i need to cut you off. we need to go to questions. i don't want, maybe you can wrap which you will say one of the questions that happens. so if you could raise your hand and then get a microphone to you. maybe we can start on that side of the room. ..
rising middle class. but the economics is going to, i think, and the regional instability that i referred to with went all the way through the middle east and south asia and much of africa, we'll have continuing instability and the lack of really economic growth and the lack of investment and the world economy, as you know, the developed world's economy is grinding slowly. i thought john spoke very well about some concerns over china and over, over its future. >> sorry. matt, go ahead. >> one of the things, i think this is critical. and as you know, john, it's an area that we need it do, i think better in the intelligence community. interesting thing is rising expectations which comes with more growth. egypt had very good growth before the arab spring. and this is in part because you are rising expectations
but you got to have a huge population of youth who really want those jobs, see that the rest of the world is living much better. and that's the sort of, i mean, it is counterintuitive at times. you think that growth, would, would actually enhance stability. it doesn't. in a lot of these cases. and that is actually how we need to think about this. a lot more. how that plays in. >> if i could add a point. there is 17-year period, from 1991 to 2008, that's very important as we look at the, kind of post-cold war era. that's the period between the fall of soviet union and the 2008 financial crisis. in that period of time the united states peach had free reign reign to do what it wanted to do in the world. whether it did it well or not is another question. the financial crisis really put a dent in our power and influence in the world. that is the main thing i
take from it. without getting our own house in order here it affects american power. the last time i was in china i asked a vice minister of the communist party, what's your major national security concern? and without any hesitation, she said, internal development. so that is how they're thinking and their manufacturing is growing 14% year-over-year. matt has in his report, the figures, point at which china will become the largest economy in the world. it is a competitive game and affects everything. we talked about sequestration. that is result of all of this. >> china's growth may be the way john predicts it. about if you talk to joe nigh and others it will not be linear. there could be again discontinuity. that will affect the world if china begins to weaken and stumbles for a variety of reasons we can talk about
at length, economically. that is very crucial. john, you're right. cia and others do not enough good analysis strategically on the economic outlook. i'm glad the nic paper highlighted it. i think it is a subject of great discussion. >> this gentleman in the blue shirt, bob rosencrans. >> bob rosencrans. i would like to bring the conversation one step back from terrorism, which, in my view is simply a tactic that radical islam uses to get its, its way in the world. and, i wonder if you could, comment on the threat that radical islamist wind up in control of the oil resources of the gulf, or wind up in control of the, nuclear weapons in pakistan. and, both assess those risks and, outline some of the
things we might do to mitigate them? >> well, you know, the, that's a great question. the current leader of al qaeda al-zawahiri, always had in mind, i will go beyond terrorism per se. he always had in mind the need for that movement, radical, islam to have symptom territory, some grounded that it can marginally control and wherever he is hiding right now and looking at syria saying this is my dream come true because probably one part of syria is going to end up in the hands of people like that and ties are growing between them and islamic radicals in western sahara. western iraq. and, just to stay with syria for a moment, as far as we know, they don't have nuclear weapons but they do have other kinds of wmd
material. i personally don't know where it is. perhaps someone in the intelligence community does. but, if there is continued sectarian war in syria, the biggest question will with be, particularly if that country breaks up into katonements, who has that stuff, what are they doing with it? that is one example of what you have to worry about. i don't worry about pakistan quite that same way but it, we could have, they have 100 nuclear weapons and all of that but, i do worry about pakistan but i don't, at this point, it is not at the point of dissolving or breaking up. >> matt, could you, let me just get matt in here. >> there are a couple, one issue we haven't really talked about, but in other settings is all they want to talk about, which is shale oil and gas. so, totally different energy picture, happening really overnight, within five years,
u.s. can be, producer, getting up to the scale of a middle east, and you have, you know, the issue here of where the price of oil is going to be in the future. and a lot of these countries, including saudi arabia, really on a higher and higher price, really to balance their budget and a lot of that budget is going into social welfare programs. so, you could see, i mean, as a result of these other, you know, trendlines, coming in, you know, increased stability and equally, if you look at pakistan, the big issue and john mentioned this is population. this country is going to have 30 to 40% more population in a 15, 20-year period. no country can handle that. so those are the, you know, that puts huge stresses on governance, in both cases. and, i think, you know, when you're looking at that, arc of instability, a lot of the
thing comes down to governments. and that's the most difficult thing for an outside actor luke the u.s. to help with, but it is also, probably the most critical factor between stability and instability. >> let me go to kim dozer. wait for the microphone. thanks. >> thanks, i have a question again for matt burrows you might not like the question. i have been to a few presentations you have this amazing, here is what is going to happen in several decades. how reactive have you found, the white house, the branches of federal government to what you tell them? are have you been able to point to something saying they're listen and changing what they're doing because of what we found out? >> yes. i mean is the answer. i mean in this present volume, the interesting thing was they wanted to engage very early, much, before the publication.
and one of the big issues was on the energy, looking at that, looking at implications. of that. that is still something ongoing in terms of how to think about a policy, but certainly, getting the information, some of the preliminary analysis, on what the impacts. i point to, and in previous administrations, previous works. i mean the secretary of state clinton, had initiative on water, on food. there was enormous amount of stuff we've been writing in global trend and some of our other, these are open publication that is the nic has done on those issues and those, some of those were directly a result of the kind of analysis that we were, we were producing. so there is impact. you know, this is a moving target and i take, maurice's point on this, if you go back, just talking about
shale five years ago. that's not something that that we featured a lot in our analysis nor is it something actually the majors did because they were weren't in the shale gas and oil business but it is something why you do this continually update it, is, try to get policymakers and they do this, i think, increasingly better, at it. thinking about difficult scenarios and how things could happen. i mean, that 9/11 was probably, a real wake-up call, for, policy makers beginning to think about these very untoward events happening. >> could i just add to that? i watched this over many years and was involved in the very first one in 1995. our government has gradually figured out these are not point predictions. will not tell you precisely with will happen in egypt three years from now. but the little trend,
assessments that come about, largely threw outside experts were quite enlightening. back in 1995 for example, one of the things we said was, the world will be revolutionized, and not very long, by universal handheld communication. whoa. didn't that just happen? the things we said about population, talking about population now for all these years, the key conclusion was, we're going to see more and more intrasocietal conflict, more or less what's happened. doesn't allow our governments to take specific actions, not actionable intelligence but if they're thinking strategically these papers are a big help. >> mr. quigley. with the microphone, please. >> thank you, gentlemen. michael quigley with human rights first. as a former intelligence officer i know intelligence officers do look for risk and predict worst case scenarios but we also look for opportunity.
my concern about cabinning the counter terrorism efforts in law of war, so forth, focusing on the fine fix finish, we are giving short-shrift to the long-term counter terrorism opportunities and nonkinetic, and i want to know, how, what are your views on how we can develop this and how we can move away from reliance on the kinetic, do less over time and do more with the nonkinetic long term, encouraging moderate voices? >> a great question. i will tell you it fits what most of us thought about as classic formula dealing with terrorism. we've done reasonably well on 2/3 of it and not well on one-third of it. the classic formula most of us think about is to destroy terrorism you have to do three things. you have to destroy the leadership. you have to deny it safe haven and you have to change the conditions that give rise to the phenomenon. okay. we've done pretty well on destroying leadership. for a while we were doing well on safe haven. but as i suggested in my first comments i think
they're getting their safe havens back. the third thing, we have not done well on at all, changing conditions. in other words, this comes about for a reasons that are, discernable. a lot of it is in matt's report. what's happening in the world, the conditions that give rise to this phenomenon, the only way you can attack that is not through kinetic means or through even intelligence sources, you have to attack that through a combination of, assistance policies, and strategic communications, which we've more or less neglected in our country for many years. ngo work, coordinated with, u.s. aid policies to the extent that's possible, and, work being with local governments on health issues and issues of education, none of this is easy or, that is probably why we haven't done much of it but that's my answer. >> unfortunately we have to leave it there. i apologize for not getting
to all of your questions. the gentlemen will be here during the week and you might be able to ask themselves. please give them a hand [applause] >> president obama announced this morning that the u.s. is scrapping joint u.s.-egypt military exercise scheduled for next month, saying american cooperation with the egyptian government can not continue when civilians are being killed in the streets. he directed his national security team to see what additional steps the u.s. might take going forward. more than 500 people are dead and 1,000 injured after the clashes between the
military government and protesters of ousted president mohammed morsi. we're going to public health preparedness forum. whether they can hand-held disasters, manmade or natural. american public health association, state governments will talk about the consequences of budget cuts. this discussion is just getting underway. >> welcome the guard of directors to this program how america is premed to deal with natural and manmade disasters. i should say up top this is not an intellectual exercise. i want to illustrate that by stealing a sentence written by one of our panelists, dr. ali kahn, from sin terse of disease control and prevention. first national strategic plan for public health preparedness and response,
dr. kahn con killed what were then recent major disasters. this is the verbatim quote. in the last five years alone, national and global health security have been threatened by incidents including hurricane katrina, west nile virus, h1n1 influenza pandemic, bacterial contamination of food by e.coli and salmonella, deepwater horror rise son oil spill and ear quake in haiti and cholera outbreak and japanese tsunami and subsequent radiation release. that is pretty breathtaking listing for only five years. we'll speculate maybe on what the next five years will bring and examine how well-prepared we are to deal with that list. we're pleased to have as a partner today in sponsoring the briefing, the robert wood johnson foundation which has been helping
americans enjoy healthier lives and get the care they need for 40 years now. and we're very lucky to have with us, to comoderate the program, dr. john lump kin, who is senior vice president of the foundation and director of its health care group. i should note that he have about joining the foundation he directed the illinois department of public health for 12 years. so he bring as great deal of experience and expertise to today's discussion. john ? >> great, thank you for, i think i'm, okay, now i'm on. thank you for all for coming. this is, a very critical topic. from my viewpoint at state of illinois, i was able to actually charge with participating in the response to a number of disasters, some of which, many of the people outside of illinois may not have
been familiar with. but we had major flooding in 1993. and i became quite interested in that because my background before i came into public health was in emergency medicine. and, as someone who has been involved in doing disaster planning for most of my career, i began to bring that as part of what we were doing in public health. but i can tell you that, that is a really challenging task. and one of the things back in the late 90s, that i thought was absolutely critical and it is more commonplace now, is we would have a molecular biology lab. up till then we were basically grow cultureses in the lab. you would sort of see what they may show in a day or two and trying to track an outbreak of disease was really challenging. from molecular biology lab you can do dna fingerprinting. i thought that was something really important. so i had a conversation with the bureau of the budget in the governor's office when i did my annual budget and they said, yeah, that sounds like a great idea.
next. and the following year we had the same conversation. then we had september 11th. in two,000 one, -- 2001, we rapidly set up a molecular biology lab. fortunately because we had thousands of samples that had sent in to the lab because they were concerned that this was going to be anthrax. now that could be the end of the story. we increased our prepared in lness. in 2002 there was event that occurred outside the springfield, illinois where a bunch of people came to this music festival and started coming down with e.coli 10357. we had had molecular ability to do fingerprints trace the individuals who were sick and scatteredded across the country to this one particular site and one particular type of food. then, in 2002 when west nile
hit our state the fact we had a molecular biology lab enabled us to be able to respond to the outbreak and run thousands of tests of people who thought they may have been infected with this disease. this is why we at the robert wood johnson foundation feel this particular issue of preparedness is so important because it is not just about responding to the major disasters that make the news. but that, preparedness is also about making sure the public health system is ready to deal with the small disasters, the small events that could have impact on how healthy people are and how they live their lives. we're pleased to be cosponsors of this event and recognize what we're talking about will have impact on everyone's lives as part of beefing up the public health system at the same time, as beefing up the ability of this country to respond to major catastrophic events.
>>. >> thank you very much, john. do a little housekeeping here you have information about our speakers and power point legislation and hard copies if we have them. if you're watching on c-span or you're watching the webcast of our briefing on our website, if you have access to a computer you can not only watch along as the presentations are given but, have access to those same power point presentations and, background materials, that folks in the room have. they will be a transcript of this briefing that will be available in a couple of days on the alliance website at all health.org. and, and in this room, i
want you to know of course there is a green question card in your packets. you can write a question once we get to the q&a session. and, you can also go to one of the microphones that is set up in the room where you can ask the question in your own voice. if you're part of the twitter verse, you wan take part using the hashtag, at peppertalk. it is on the title slide you see on the screens. one last note. we're going to have a very good discussion about the preparedness of the public health system and i don't want you to think that we are not aware that there is another part of the responsive system that we don't have time to cover with any detail today. and that is, the preparedness of the health care system.
hospitals, nursing homes, other entities, all have a part to play in being able to respond to the kind of disasters that we will be talking about. there is an assistant secretary for preparedness that, has responsibility for other programs that are useful in this regard. and, we hope to, turn our attention to that at some future point. so let us get to the program. we have a terrific panel lined up for you. and then we'll turn to our a questions. we're going to start with dr. benjamin. he is the executive director of the american public health association which represents your country's public health professionals. he is a board certified internist. he has run apha for more than a dozen years. before that he headed maryland's department of health and mental hygiene. he is somebody familiar with public health and its role dealing with different types of disasters at many levels.
and we're happy to have you back on our panel, dr. benjamin. >> thank you very much for having me here today. i'm going to start out by pointing out our new reality. >> mike phone please. there. >> there we go. can you hear me now? talk about the new reality. we're in the dangerous world with dangerous people, both with and without state sponsorship. the technology we have today, very, very different than technology we had 20 30 years ago. with very rapid scientific advancements and lots of people with knowledge of lethal organisms. also point out the nature. we often say the nature is the first terrorist. just because, the enormous impact that nature can have both creating infectious diseases as well as other
extreme weather events. globalization is both a blessing and a curse. the fact that we can have rapid movement of infectious diseases across borders. we talk about one plane ride away from something very bad. we're also one plane ride away from infectious foods. we're also one plane ride away or should say one e-mail away from communication of very dangerous information that should be out of the hands of people that are very dangerous. we're certainly in a very, very challenging world today. and, as i think you have heard from, both our earlier speakers, here, about the fact that we still have significant threats around. just remind you, that we currently have a psych la spore a outbreak wit is a food outbreak -- cyclospora outbreak. we have need to refine our
vac nations programs as well as challenges around our infrastructure for public health. the fertilizer explosion. it tells us a lot what could happen even in fundamentally rural america. that every part of our community needs to be prepared. and of course the annual run of tornadoes that we continually have through the midwest each and every year that can devastate whole communities. the importance of this is that public health is a central role in all of these things. and of course, i point out, even the boston bombings, what many people don't know, of course is that the central role of the health department in terms of responding because the "boston public" health commission actually oversees the emergency management function in that city. of course they were heralded for their fiber-optic work responding to this emergency but i remind you they did
good work in a staged event and things were tragically as they should work but that tells you what, the importance of preparedness. if you talk to those folks they will tell you training and preparedness and resources clearly made the difference in their response. i say that because public health needs to have a range of capacities and these are the capacities that public health needs to have. this is kind of a snapshot of that. we kind of need to know when the new disease enters a community, if we can't prevent it. we to be able to measure it, do surveillance, track what it does. address the health threats. there is a range of capacities that the public health system needs to have, and that is each and every community. not just a selected number of communities. not just your big cities. each and every community needs to have these capabilities.
i also want to point out a prepared community is one of resilience. i will use for the sake of discussion today, the definition of resilience we use in national security strategy but functionally basically it means that the ability of a community to get back on its feet, to be able to respond quickly when you have something bad happens or you have changing conditions. and then, recovery is very important. if you think about the various disasters we've had over the last 10, 15 years, and you think about the capacity of the various communities to recover, that tells you a lot about the internal capacity of communities. all communities have strengths, but, communities are different. and i think the goal we have is to make sure that all of our communities, have the resilience that's necessary for them to adapt to, and recover very quickly from a disaster. we know that too many americans don't take their
individual preparedness seriously. they're underprepared. there have been lots of surveys. this is an example of a survey done last year that basically says half of individuals, having done some of the simple things that are necessary, to be prepared. that's a significant problem that we need to begin to address. and, i know the american public health association has been working with the public to try to address some of these. but we call it our get ready campaign. our get ready campaign is a campaign that is designed to build resilience. our goal is to try to make sure every american can protect themselves and families and their communities from serious preventable health threats. we've done that by creating a series of the resources, to try to allow communities to, to become prepared. we have, gotten very engaged in the social media world. so that we have blogs and, e-mails and twitter
activity. we have, had events. we have a cat calendar and a dog calendar. all kinds of things to remind people that it is important to get prepared to try to engage them in very, very active ways to try to improve the health both of they're families and of their community. i'm going to leave you with one final note because we're all in this amazing time trying to insure we get universal access to health care for all americans. i need to point out even when we achieve a well-functioning health care system of the highest equaled -- quality that provides the care at optimal cost, we don't have that yet, we're all working to do that. even when we achieve that and even when every american, even if every american gets the platinum level health plan -- for those of you not
familiar with the aca. that is the highest level plan. that is one we all want if we could afford it. each one of us had that and a little plastic card to go along with it, we would still need a robust public health system that is prepared to address that. it is very important to understand that most of what we do in medical care is not done by, most we do in 3r50e7d preparedness not done by the health delivery system. a lot of this stuff is done by the public health system. when you hear from the other public speakers, they will talk a lot more about that in greater detail than i can this morning. with that, i thank you. then i turn that back over to you. >> thank you, georges. we're going to turn now to dr. ali kahn, from whom i stole a sentence a few moments ago. dr. kahn directs the office of public health preparedness and response at the centers for disease
control and prevention. note that duality of purpose, preparedness and response. dr. kahn was a primary force behind cdc's bioterrorist preparedness program. directed its response to the 2001 anthrax attacks which some of you may recall actually shut down this very building, the hart senate office building, at the time. dr. kahn is an internist and pediatrician and we're very pleased to have you with us today. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> press it and wait for a moment. don't press it again. now try it. >> technology, in action. good afternoon, everybody. thank you, ed, very much for
that very generous introduction. so i have the wonderful responsibility and amazing honor to support the nation's health security efforts. this is to make sure americans are safe 24/7 from all public health threats no matter what their nature, foreign or domestic, whether they're bioterrorism, chemical terrorism, whether they're natural disasters, whether they're pandemics, large spills or the routine public health threats of every day that you read in your paper. now what was very clear, thank you, georges, from your initial presentation is while public health events are clearly local and state events there are fiscal, political and economic ramifications of those events that require national response. and that's why increasingly over the last couple of years we've been talking about public health and in the context of insuring this nation's health security. our secretary, secretary
sebelius was at cdc this week. during the course of our conversation with her she mentioned that we should think of cdc and health functions as more broadly as part of our national security all together. now as part of our activities, let's see if this piece of technology works. >> there we go. >> there you go. not that i need these. can i tell you in one slide what we do? so a couple of things. we're responsible for establishing national strategy and policy. to make sure that for national health security. make sureaway driving innovation and continuous improvement in the public health programs. we're very fortunate to have 1.3 billion dollars to help fund those activities, not just at cdc but with our
state and local health departments. we also run some critical operations you are likely aware of. the emergency operations center this is the public health fusion center for the nation. as we talk with our national and other domestic partners we run the strategic national stockpile. this is almost a 4 billion stockpile of materials we hold in trust for americans for any large public health threat to make sure we get life saving medications and materials to americans when they need them after a public health threat. finally we also run the regulatory select agent program here in the united states that regulates 300 labs that have the most dangerous pathogens in the world. now the crown jewel of our program without a doubt is our state and local preparedness program. and we put out approximately 600 to 700 million dollars a year still, to our state and local health departments to prepare them for all public
health threats. and is a reflection of the reality of public health. i think why dr. benjamin, preceded me. public health doesn't happen at cdc. public health happens at your state and local level. and that's where the initial detection occurs. that is where the initial response occurs. and we need to make sure that our communities are ready for public health threats and are able to respond to them when they occur. over the last couple of years we have structured this preparedness program around capabilities, consistent with the national preparedness goal and what this slide i presented for you shows, how we support those 15 capabilities at the state and local level. now, these funds go out, not just to the 50 states, a couple of large cities, and territories but they go out essentially 1200 public health departments across the united states. so, at the end of the day it
gets quite diffuse. but you will see from these slides that about a 1/5 of the dollars go out for core epidemiology disease investigation, disease monitoring work and the same thing is true for laboratory activities. then the next big chunk for community preparedness. so that is how these dollars are being used in your communities. now what i would like to do is make that a little bit less abstract. i'm missing that slide. there you go. i want to make that a little less abstract. i could talk about monies and capabilities and how does this translate what is happening in your communities? all you have to do is open the up the newspaper to understand what public health is doing in your communities and what these resources are doing in the communities to help with disease tracking and emergency operations systems, communication efforts. so, the cyclospora outbreak for example, which are were up to about 550, 560-odd
cases, our eoc is currently activated in response to that. those same set of capabilities help for all sorts of other foodborne outbreaks you hear about. i think yesterday we released a alert to all state and local health departments and all clinicians of a solution of calcium contaminated with a bacterial product that wasn't sterile. so we released an alert to get those off the market. make sure the patients were not being infused with this contaminated call yum carbonate. -- calcium. many know of the funkal outbreak, 750 cases occurred. these are preparedness and multiple resources brought to play to respond to the outbreak. that included preparedness activities to make sure we had epidemiologists who investigate the outbreak. to make sure we have tracking systems. to make sure we set up emergency operation system. make sure we had
relationships with law enforcement to potentially track down people we couldn't otherwise track down, excuse me we would like you to see your clinician to see whether or not you are infected with these contaminated steroids. the west nile outbreak, we were very fortunate to be able to help our colleagues in texas, i think last year, there were about 5, 6,000 cases of west nile. about a third of them actually occurred, anybody from dallas? no takers. lucky for you. about a third of the cases last year occurred in dallas. we were able to use public health preparedness resources to help them with mosquito spraying and abatement efforts. example there. same thing you heard about the boston marathon, how we in conjunction with our partners the hospital preparedness program were able to get the community ready for that bombing and other such events. i could go on with sandy and influenza a, but just examples, this isn't
abstract. this is what is going on in your communities every day to make sure that you're protected from public health threats. this is to give you the reality of the situation of what's happened to public health funding within your state and local health departments over the last decade. and, maybe coming off your comment i would like platinum level public health for all americans if we can arrange that moving forward. but you will see there has been over 40% decline in funding for public health preparedness and response activities within your communities. so let me end with these two slides. we are always trying it improve our program. there is a couple of things we would still like to do. one is continue to insure that we enhance global health security efforts. as you heard, pat owe against, don't need passports, right? they are crossing borders. once upon a time we used to, i have a couple of uniformed
officers here from the public health service. you know, we used to be lucky when the incubation period to get to some place was shorter than the time to get here. so if you were on a ship and coming here to the united states we pretty much knew you had yellow fever on the ship and we can quarantine the ship. nowadays with you take a plane you can be anywhere within 24 hours. that is shorter than incubation period of some of the most deadly diseases in the world. you walk into the port, already infected, ready to go in a new place. we need to think globally about protecting americans. how do we improve biosurveillance efforts? how do we improve the disease monitoring activities in the united states? how do we take advantage of the number of efforts around electronic health records? looking at other sources of information, such as animals, we need to do a better job with that. one of the key things that i've noticed in my experience with disasters, so, pretty much all of the disasters you heard about, at the beginning of this
presentation i had some opportunity to participate in them. i've done 20 years with fever and outbreaks over my lifetime, ebola, what is very clear to me how we get judged as a society during a response is how do we respond to the needs of the most vulnerable populations in our communities? and we need to get that right. so the struler inable populations of our communities, be they be children and people with other disabilities, they can't be annexes to our plans. they have to be integral how we think responding to make sure that we meet their needs. how we continue to improve efficiency of our programs, and then finally, an effort we're heavily involved with the robert wood johnson foundation is how do we improve the measurement of preparedness activities. we already have a wonderful way to do that with trust for america's health. somebody may be in the audience. how are you? we're currently working on
national preparedness index which is a state by state effort to look more collectively and comprehensively at public health, and at health care preparedness activities to think about how do we take care, address gaps and how do we improve those efforts and improve the science of our preparedness. with those priorities what i want to leave you with is this, there is a lot of continued challenges to public health preparedness activities and activities insuring our nation's security. infectious diseases an mersa, h7 and 9, everybody knows what we're talking about. we're always at the cusp of an another pandemic. i remind people fear is not a public public health measure or strategy. knowledge is a public health strategy, how a small disease like sars in a small little community all of a sudden can go global given
the right circumstances. modified versions of microbes, do it yourself microbiology, make it increasingly likely. eye involving terrorist threats from car bombs, to, backpack bombs, to bombs that come in, printer cartridges. terrorists are always rethinking their strategies and we need to be always evolving our strategies to be ready. obviously the continuing economic crisis and what's that's done to public health preparedness funding. climate disruption effects and what that could mean for natural disasters in the united states. thank you. >> great, thank you very much, dr. kahn. a comprehensive and useful picture what's going on. we're going to turn now to roseanne patz, who is the director of emergency preparedness for the louisiana department of health and hospitals.
that puts her smack in the middle of coordinating federal, state and local age is -- agencies and preparing for disasters of various types. she has a rich and varied background in health administration roles. she was around during the katrina days in louisiana and shy has been with the department more than 20 years. we're really pleased to have you with us today. >> make sure i've got this right. >> wait. more time. there you go. >> can you hear me? all right. well, good afternoon. i think i was one of the last panelists to be picked up on this very distinguished panel. so i thought, i would talk to you from what i know in terms of my strength is more in operations. usually i'm never at a loss for words. from an operations perspective. if you told me that, you told me the problem is
katrina, dpus starve, rita, ike, the mississippi oil spill. recently tropical storm isaac last year. so some of the operation concerns that we have. if you said how will which evacuate half of our coastline in a 38-hour period i know who to go to. i know how long it will take. how many hospitals you have in your, in your resbek tiff communities, in your state. how many of you expect will be evacuated or not. how many can help themselves. how many will need the state's assistance. how many of those will need federal assistance, i can tell you. today i just, even last night i was talking to some of my colleagues here too, all of sudden i find myself not, coming up with many so words or anxious about what i was saying to you, as policymakers. and i find that, we are asking for your help to add advocate for dollars to be
to be returned because of things that i know, in terms of operations. you know i can tell just from american red cross has a 23 square foot per person, when we come up with capacity numbers, for a building. that is slowly been increasing as recommendations are made through groups such as yourself, to have special requirements for pediatrics or children that we should have play areas. that we should have various things for children. so that capacity is now increasing to about 52 square foot per person. what does that mean in terms of operations? that means the number of buildings you had before, the capacity is now just lower. so if you could have fit 300 people in a building, using american red cross standards, now, you might have to find two buildings to fit the same number of people. so, your, the things that
you advocate for, will definitely have an impact on our operations. so, in terms of issues, it's, from the planning perspective, the grants that we have, the hp p grant and the sep. it has allowed us to what we call war game with each other and sit in the same room with public health, hospitals, your military department, emergency management. so that you can really try to figure out the what ifs. you start to figure out where your partners are coming from or what's really behind them in terms of resources. what the response perspective or operations perspective, we do know that the states will be asking for assistance when it comes to dmat teams or, other types of federal assistance that the states typically ask for. so funds to assist with the dmat teams, consistent with training so they can come to the states to help work and
play alongside of our states and local partners. we do ask our hospitals to surge up in terms of planning, but at the same time, the stafford act doesn't allow for reimbursement when it comes to response. so there's still some issues in terms of disconnects that still has to occur. the hospital preparedness dollars and do advance the planning. we've become more crisper, more organized in terms of how we will approach the response. but again there are still some things that we do know we need to address and when it comes to the response itself and how will health and medical get reimbursed. whether that is giving money through fema or more money to did. hs to help with some of those response efforts. finally in terms of a point of the changing landscape. you know, we say you're only as good as your last
disaster. each disaster is a difficult monster. you really can't compare caterpillar todkatrina to sandy, they're different. populationings are different. if we give out boot straps to everybody, the perhaps the burden on the state or government, both local, state or federal, wouldn't be as demanding. but we will always have some vulnerable citizens the definitions what used to be just ada definitions of, you know, challenged in terms of being blind or being in a wheelchair are now broadening because of all the grants that we have, you, increase the number of vulnerable citizens that you have which are now more of, you know, children, pediatrics. you can kind of tell with just the range of grants
that we have, each, most of the grants will always identify other types of vulnerable citizens. and then during a storm, when you have a lot of sheltering going on, you're really trying in the sheltered environment to hook them up to various types ever social programs that are out there, that don't necessarily all connect up. so an 18-year-old young lady that might be pregnant might have a social program you can connect them to but not the same thing for a 18-year-old young man. so those are just age differences, vulnerable differences. and, some disconnects when it comes to social programs. and again, on the changing landscape, what will the obamacare issues bring, when it comes to response? different irv insurance payments. i'm sure there might be some vulnerable citizens in that arena as well. and i think if we have some think tanks, discussions, at the policy level, as it how we can best leverage dollars
so that we can all be more responsive, in our own communities i think that would be best for this industry, both public health, the emergency preparedness and response community. along with the hpp industry as well. thanks. >> and just, so we know what we're talking about, hpp is the health system hospital. >> preparedness program, yes. >> very good. all right, thanks very much, roseanne. we'll he will turn to jack herman, senior advisor and chief of public health preparedness of the national association of county and city health officials. one of his duty toss to strengthen the preparedness and response capabilities of local health departments. he has experience in mental health disasters and
licensed mental health counselor in new york. jack, you bring special viewpoints and special expertise and we're very pleased to have you join us. >> thank you, ed. i also want to thank the alliance and robert wood johnson for the invitation to today's briefing. and i would like to start my remarks more from a personal nature. august and september, represent very poignant and bittersweet months for me in my professional career. four weeks from now we'll be celebrating, not really celebrating with happiness but celebrating as a mile stone the anniversary of the 9/11. i vividly remember being deployed that morning to new york city from my home in rochester, new york. as i drove in and came upon the landscape of new york city, saw the billowing smoke in the air and then, entered lower manhattan and drove over litter and debris from the world trade center towers that had collapsed
only hours before. and was volunteering with the american red cross and working with the new york city department of mental health and hygiene to take care of mental health needs by families affected by one of the world's most tragic acts of terrorism. a couple years later in 2003 i responded again to new york city. i happened to be there that day for a red cross disaster training when the blackout occurred. in the early hours of that blackout there was a psychological angst that was cast over the city because many people thought this might be another act of terrorism. and over the course of that night, spent time with the red cross staff and volunteers deploying disaster action teams across the city to over80 fires in eight hours. and finally, in just a couple of weeks, august 29th, will mark the 8th on a
versery of hurricane katrina, a storm that caused 1500 deaths and displaced 1.5 million people. many already know about the tragic stores that came out of that devastating disaster. these events and many others that have occurred since then to use an overplayed phrase, took a village to respond to and a critical member of village is local health departments. so i'm here today representing the national association of county and city health officials, a nonprofit, national organization that is the voice of our nation's 2800 local health departments. we attempt to be a leader, partner, catalyst for local health departments so they can insure the conditions in their communities to promote health inequity and combat disease and protect and lengthen life and protect
the overall health of those who live there. a lot of people really don't know what their local health department does and i'm going to switch, to a map here and, and try to articulate here that local health departments are county, city, metropolitan district and tribal governmental agencies. they report to mayors, city councils, county boards of health or county commissions. some local health departments are units of their state government. some are locally controlled and others share that authority between the state and local government. and as i said earlier, every day local health departments work to protect and promote health and the well-being for all the people in those local communities. if you look at the demographics of the 2800 local health departments across the country the majority of those, well over 60%, cover jurisdictions that are small, under 50,000 population. the minority of our health
departments, about 5% of local health departments, serve the large metropolitan areas. but they cover almost half of the nation's population. these are urban centers like l.a., new york, chicago and d.c. and as i have tried to emphasize in my earlier remarks, all disasters strike locally. local health departments are a critical part of our community's first response to disease outbreaks, emergencies, and acts of terrorism. over the past year, local public health has engaged in the response to and recovery from many major events which some of my copanelists have talked about. both man made and naturally occurring. hurricane sandy, that ravaged the mid-atlantic and east coasts, the boston marathon bombing, and the fertilizer plant explosion in west texas are examples of those. and the list of activities that you see in the slide
represent the capabilities that local public health brings to bear in response to those, disasters. those are the capabilities that dr. kahn outlined earlier and represented in. cdc's public health preparedness capabilities national standards for state and local planning document. with superstorm sandy we heard about many of the challenges in response to that weather event. local health departments experienced their fair share of challenges, even though we see those as largely successful events, they still were challenging to local health departments. the new york city department of health and mental high keep had to take over a variety of public health services high-rise apartment buildings in effort to reach out to vulnerable populations making sure they had food, water and life sustaining medications. supporting shelters for displaced concerns and
working alongside hospitals that needed to evacuate before or during the storm. in new jersey, health departments partnered with their state and federal age sis to provide emergency services to residents and activated their local medical reserve corps units and other volunteers to take care of the health and welfare of those impacted by the storm. if you haven't seen the robert wood johnson video highlighting heroic efforts of new jersey state and local health departments go to their website and take a look. it is really a well-done video. many lessons were learned from hurricane sandy. one of the most important for health departments is the need to insure coordination with partners ahead of time so that no one or no community goes unassisted. another lesson learned was the importance of understanding the influential role social media will play in the disaster and how local health departments need to be able to anticipate and meet expectations of the people in their communities during a response.
the boston marathon bombing, in april of this year, involved the health department, and their medical reserve corps coming out in full force. in fact they had spent many months planning to participate in that marathon and were already on the scene of that world-renowned event. nearly 200 boston health department personnel were on site and treating runners with injuries and health problems in medical tents along the marathon route. when the bombing occurred they were able to respond within seconds contributing life-saving measures to those who were injured . .
and assisted in the coordination of the mental health case management with the local authorities. they also described long standing partnership between the health department, local hospitals, state level agencies and emergency management with creating the mutual trust screen greatly contributed to the success of the public health response. but public healths preparedness and response is not just limited to large scale disasters. local health departments perform critical roles in other health related incident that occurred over the past year. as we talked about some of those this morning, the meningitis outbreak in october of 2012,
health departments were conducting contact tracing, vaccination tracking, and the local bootses on the ground doing the investigation in 23 states that lead back to the sewers of -- source of the outbreak. heath departments were also responsible for contacting health care nailt received to ensure that those facilities stopped using the products that potentially could have sickened or killed many more. some of you may have heard about the hepatitis outbreak in tulsa, it was allegedly resulting from unsanitary conditions in improper sterilization procedures used in a local dentist office. an investigation screening in massive jurisdictional testing campaign was executed by tulsa in oklahoma's department of
health, the tulsa health department actually had to set up free testing clinics for 7,000 patients who may have been exposed. and there were over 70 confirmed cases of hepatitis and three hiv cases. it could have potentially could have lead to more cases of high and -- hiv and hepatitis. other infections occurred throughout the country this year in wisconsin, there was a tv -- tb outbreak requiring them to activate the incident command system and contact large scale tb testing and monitoring campaign in the school system, and also worked with the counties purchasing agent to find out an apartment to isolate an individual who was diagnosed with multidrug resistance tuberculosis. previous and current largely contributed to the public health department being ready to handle
that tb outbreak. previous training and exercising along with the health department's partners helped them better understand the role of ics and follow ics principles and those partnerships also helped them work together seamlessly and amplify the key public health messages that had to go out around the incident to the public. finally many of you have no doubt have heard about the recent outbreak across the country. it affected 19 states and resulted in almost 550 cases of death, and i'm sorry 550 cases to date, and the hospitalization of 34 individuals. lhd along with state and federal partners are responsible for helping trace and identify the source of the parasite back to prepackaged said -- salad mix. local departments conduct to
investigation and interview today with the infected patients. so the take away of these events is that preparedness is not a process. but a process that requires ongoing planning, training, and exercises. and the sustainment of capabilities to protect the nation's health and welfare. preparedness happens before an event occurs. not during. a local fire department didn't sit back and wait for a fire and decide to go out and buy a fire truck to respond to the fire. when you think about it, though, that's exactly what we do during a disaster. think back to the big federal nawndz went out the door after 9/11. hurricane katrina, h1n1 and more recently hurricane sandy. investments need to be in advance if we expect a successful response with that said the preparedness capability
of local health departments today they use to respond exist because of that investment of dollars, the investment of time and resources, personnel, provided at all levels of government. local, state, triable, territorial, and federal as well as those from the non-profit and private sector. as critical health programs including those in preparedness the ability to sustain the capabilities and catches for local health department response diminishes. let's look a little bit how local health departments support their public health missions including health preparedness. the chart illustrates the funding sources for local health department. you can see federal funding makes up about 20% of the health department'sover all budget. the -- however, almost 60% of local health departments rely
exclusively on federal funding to support the preparedness activities. four of the nation's largest cities receive direct federal funding from health preparedness through the cbc preparedness grant program. and the hospital preparedness program. while the rest of the local health department rely on an allocation of the grant passed through the state health department. it's important to point out that fema's emergency grant program is separate from the previously mentioned public health grant programs. it's not due politictive. the program insurance -- ensures that the first responders agencies, police, fire, ems have the resources they need to respond to disasters. the take away message when any federal grant program is cut, it has significant and sometimes dangerous impact on the program that rely on the funds. in fact a survey contacted by nato in the latter part of 2011
found almost 60% of health departments cut were eliminated one public health program area. in that same year, almost a quarter of the local health departments had to reduce or eliminate the preparedness program because of the funding cuts. just in quickly out of time, but this next slide shows that since 2008, we have lost almost 44,000 jobs in the public local public work force, and that those jobs represent real activities in local health departments. these are the people who are there to prepare for disasters, respond to disasters, conduct imimmunization clinics and used in the event the community needed to distribute life saving medical measures after a
disaster. the doctor talked about the significant cuts that have been seen in public health emergency preparedness funding. the cbc theft grant, and the hospital preparedness grant. the hospital preparedness grant is in further jeopardy as the president and the senate have proposed $1 14 million cut in fiscal year 2014. remember the funds largely support public health departments, hospitals, and health care coalitions to prepare and plan for disaster. just to draw your attention again, these cuts have created significant and real impacts on local departments, as i have been mentioning. this slide talks about health departments in wisconsin, kentucky, frederick county, maryland who had to try to shudder the immunization clinics
or lay off staff who largely would be the people they would rely on to either prepare and create their plans for disasters, or actually respond to disasters. so finally our take away and recommendation. undoubtly the u.s. public health system is more secure than it was prior to the events of september 11 ted, and anthrax attacks because the federal government and the publics' taxes have supported critical public health preparedness program. we have built a strong and vibrant national preparedness capability that begins and end at the local level. we need to sustain the investments. the local public health community acknowledges the need for science-based measure to prove our capability and show a return on investment to congress and the people. and some can say that successful responses to some of the event i talked about is witness to and returned on such investments. and we have to remember that a state of preparedness is not an
end state. it's a process. every cut and preparedness funding has tangible and real life consequences for your subsequents and the -- constituents and community you serve. the support of training and exercising through a public health grant program, as i mentioned. keep community agile through response investment in lhd provide staff and services necessary to support long-term cover i are. and the continued support in the dwo. critical public health capability and capacity at the local, state, regional levels ultimately builds a nation prepared and protected. >> great, thank you very much, jack. let me ask one question to clarify something. if you get back to jack's slide on the job losses over time, your note talked about 43 seemed loss -- >> i'm sorry. >> in 2012. >> in twelve, yes.
>> but also 4,000 physicians being created -- positions being created so there was a small net loss. is the 43,900 a net loss? >> yes, so i think -- as you can see the 43,900 represents real people and physician that were identified in public health to provide public health services in local health department. even though the figure for 2012 may look promising and very -- bright that doesn't account for the impact sequestration will have on the jobs and positions in health departments. >> okay. thank you. now we get to the point where you can join the dialogue, if you would like, as i mentioned, there are microphones which you can come to ask a question in person, in which case we would ask you to identify yourself and keep the question as brief as
you possibly can. there are also green question cards in your packets. you can write the question out, if you tholed up, someone from the staff will snatch it from your fingers and bring it forward. i would also encourage the member of the panel, and of course, our comoderater to join in at my point in this dialogue that you feel the need to. so you, sir, have the first question in this sequence. >> thank you. al, am media. in recent months have there been any changes, additions, new partnership taking place with volunteers particularly those affiliated with religious communities? >> can i address that? >> please. >> working with faith-base organization and others in a community have long been the practice in local health
department. they recognize they can't do it alone. if for many years, there have been efforts and attempt to link with a variety of partners including faith-based organization. as you look across the country, they are reaching to the organization to populate medical reserve corps, red cross teams, disaster mental health teams. i would say it's common practice to reach in to those organizations and ensure that they're there. those communities are there to be able to help out during disasters. >> and any way are they replacing any of the lost jobs? >> the -- i think, you know, that's a touchy subject. there are some positions in health departments staff positions and health department because of hr, laura, you know, can't necessarily use a voluntary. but i have to tell you in
speaking directly with health departments, because of the attrition they have seen over the years, they had to rely on medical reserve corp. and other volunteer assets in the community to conduct preparedness joust -- outreach campaign. do staff health fair on behalf of the health department. >> [inaudible] >> okay. to put this in to a little bit of perspective, one of the things that impressed me at the disaster sites i have seen is the role of volunteers. the american red cross, for instance, is a one organization that is slated by congress to be actively participating in disasters. when i went down to some of the relief effort related to katrina, it was the southern baptist serving the meals. they do it up-and-down the east coast and the west coast. in recovery period, the men knit have an incredible system of helping people put the homes back together.
one of the cuts that happened in one of our staff who came to the foundation came from a health department in new hampshire, is they laid off the staff who were involved in doing contact tracing for diseases -- sexually transmitted diseases which include hiv. if that outbreak that happened in texas had occurred in new hampshire, they wouldn't have had the staff. that's not something that volunteers can do. it takes training and public health. what happens is when those individuals get laid off, this happened to me in my agency when i was back in illinois, when they get laid off. they get hired by the private sector. if those jobs are create again, or if there is some back filling. it's very difficult for public health agencies to hire people with those kinds of skills. those public health skills which are hard to hire. it creates a lasting deficit in the ability of the public health system to respond.
>> i have a question for dr. khan. you mentioned preparedness index that cbc put together. i wonder if you could elaborate on what purpose it's going serve. when it's going to be available? what elements will be included. [inaudible] >> serves at the chair of the govern mans crew. so let me start and hand it over to john. this is conceived to be a state by state comprehensive index over 150 odd measures in health care and public health that are pub -- publicly available. the index process is designed to drive preparedness within our community, provide objective evidence, and concrete things actionable things our community
can do to improve their preparedness. and then to drive the science. you know, we are big on accountability. we need to measure preparedness in the communities. we have gotten a lot better over the last couple of years and want to improve the measure of preparedness. this is an effort being sheparded by the associative, state, and territorial department. and the doctor serves as chair of the governess group. it's not cbc alone. >> yawn -- john? >> let me say one of the reason of the index. it's a process initiated by the center of disease control and prevention as well as association state and territory health officials and our foundation is happy to have an opportunity participate in that process. is that states believe that
preparedness is actually part of their, you know, part of their charge also. but it's really challenging to figure out where are you going spend your next dollar if you're going increase preparedness. how do you know whether or not what you have done has increased preparedness, and if you are trying to go work, how do you do quality improvement within preparedness. the index is designed to be initiated by the cbc, but not part of the process of reviewing grants. that's a critical component. it's not to review the how well the state is doing on the grant from the cbc or the grant from the office of the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. it's a tool for states to use working with local communities, local health department. and assess the level of preparedness and use it as planning and quality improvement. the first numbers will be coming out in october. it will not be designed to rank
or compare states. again, it's going to be able to help them measure in the initial one and over time how the work on preparedness is progressing. >> my question is from mrs. prats. you touched a little bit on issues with the stafford act. can you elaborate a little bit more particularly on the issue of reimbursement. the stafford act is whenever there's a natural disaster, you'll have a stafford act kick in, which pretty much the fema rules for what gets reimbursed or what doesn't get reimbursed. usually you'll have that kind of have that reimbursement versus nonstafford act issues which are more of you have a company at fault. let's say the bp oil spill. then they would say, okay, bp has to make it whole.
they would be the company that would pay for damages. so they would compare them but usually has to be a funding stream. if you can get various things reimbursed. >> was that an issue with hurricane katrina? >> the reimbursement? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. >> if i can add, there are some things there's worth looking at the stafford act. it says the federal government only pace for bringing a -- whether it's hospital or community back to where it was before the incident occurred. and that is understandable. if you have a house and you have a 20-year-old fur mans. you don't want, the staff -- stafford act to be replacing things if they are not damaged. it one of the precall areaty if
you remember from hurricane sandy, the nyu hospital closed down in lower manhattan. it closed down because when the storm came, they had their generators. they moved the generators to the higher floors, but they kept the fuel down at the lower floors because it's a little bit safer. when the water flooded, they recognized that the sensors recognized it as being perhaps a fuel spill and cut off the generators and lost power. so the generators were operating, now they are going rebuild it. safford act would not provide resources when they rebuild the hospital to move the fuel from the basement up to the higher floors. so there are i think some instants where there needs to be a little bit more of a common sense in some of the did provisions. sometimes it's hard set and the way the policy was developed it's clear to understand.
but sometimes there are unintended consequences. >> he is very right. there's other subtlety as well. when it comes to patient care, so if you are a hospital and you just absorbed all the people that started to evacuate to shelter, so they didn't meet admit criteria. if they met it, then they would get, you know, medicare, medicaid, third party reimbursement. anything else if you were sheltering, the hospital could not claim any of those costs through the stafford act. in fact there's no other means for them to claim any of those sheltering costs. i'm not sure hhs has that money, and, you know, we have reports about dote l at the point no full study as to if hospitals were continue to shelter and surge, you know, we know there are operational costs go through the roof 50%. if you have a neurosurgeon
today. you can pay them during normal business, but during a storm, they're going start decompressing their facilities, they might start helping with the sheltering operations, but, you know, the hospital still has to pay the operating costs. and there's nowhere to claim some of the costs. if you just take it from a storm environment, that's like three to five day, you might lose some funds, but what happens if you have a pandemic flu, for instance, and you're out months. five weeks to months? what happens to those types of surge costs? i'm not sure there's really a solution for the public health issues that might come up related to surging. >> okay. >> yes. go ahead. >> hello, my name is -- [inaudible] i'm with the enate committee on small business and entrepreneurship with senator
landrieu, who is the chair. my question is particularly to mr. herman but also either of the panelists. and it is what kind of preparedness techniques or preparedness are you getting ready for when it comes to small businesses? because as we know, a lot of times people are at work when these disasters occur. it what is happening in term of keeping employees safe or even safe from an actual disaster even if something torp to occur at the workplace? >> that's a great question. the quick an is not enough. but what local health departments are doing are finding ways to partner with businesses. small and large in the community to help them understand how to go on a continue new -- continuity. in the face of disaster they'll be able to take care of their employees and be able to carry out business. which is important to the
economy of those communities. and you raise issues like you know what would happen in a disaster, say a flu pandemic. many of these individuals may have to be out of work because they're sick or taking care of sick family members. that business has to be shut down. in small communities, all business is vital. those are the type of issues that health department bring to the table with businesses to help them kind of work through how is your business and how are your employees prepared to handle a disaster if it strikes them? >> dr. khan? >> that's a thoughtful question. over 40% of small businesses close after disasters. clearly it's a real impact on small businesses. you heard about some of the effort at the local and state health department. there's other national effort. fema does a lot of work as a
parts of the critical infrastructure how they protect the workers. and in this -- always it's important i think i try to mention prevention. which is supply chains. there's all sort of other elements if we can try to understand what is going on in communities quickly about outbreak. there will be information available to businesses for them to understand what is the impact on their business. i spent two or three months in singapore helping them sphontd czars outbreak. some, -- nobody wants to go to southeast asia anymore. there are local impacts of these outbreaks. and significant economic impact. >> let me -- yes. it. -- >> let me also add think of small community providers of small businesses. we often are concerned about the hospital. the truth of the matter is while they're a challenge, any time
these big disasters occur, all of the small-community base providers have all the sage challenges. they lose infrastructure. and the capacity, the health care capacity for this nation is really in the outpatient setting. not the hospitals. so that's a big capacity we lose. that's through vulnerable -- >> if i can, we have a question that relates to the supply chain. if gets us back to hospitals. give us your thought, the questioner asks, about the vulnerability that hospitals have in relying off site providers of waste disposal and other items that keep a hospital running in a pandemic and a
natural disaster. if it's a problem. what can do you about it? >> it's a planning issue for communities. one of the things we were doing right before 9/11 was looking at the exact question of supply change in the state of maryland. what we discovered was every hospital, they relied on the same providers to provide the resources. and so what has happened is in communities as ems planners are looking at that. there are challenging supply chain to make sure there are backup suppliers and the redundancy of -- i know that's an issue for the assistant secretary for preparedness, and very much aware of the that as an thash
needs to be continued to be resolved. >> that ties to a comment that jack and the other speakers made. preparedness is not a destination. it's a journey. every time you do a disaster drill, and you work through that, you begin to ask questions and solve problems. when you drill again, you find other problems. the first disaster drill i worked for when i was at the university of chicago at the emergency department. we scheduled the drill at 9:00. we're sitting down in the er, and 9:00 came and went. 9:15 came and went. finally at 9:30 the operator gave us a call and the emergency department didn't tell us there was a mock drill. well, it turns out that the operator was given the call up list. the emergency department was at the bottom. you wouldn't have known that until you gone through a drill or gone through a disaster.
i'm on the board of a hospital that discovered things related to our power supply after hurricane sandy. -- i'm sorry super storm sandy. and so we are strog make changes. this is a process. every time we go through it, the system gets better. that's the reason why we say it's a journey. and the hospitals are required to do have disaster plans. they are required to train and drill on those on an annual basis at the minimum. those e those they are beginning to learn how to deal with issues when someone says what about the linen and the others. i think it really describes the importance of ongoing preparedness. i couldn't agree more. get to the heart of these you can't do preparedness and isolation. i'm reminded during certain responses when nursing homes that plan to evacuate each other.
they haven't spoke ton each other. and so essentially they want to send patients to each other. and that was the response plan. i think it talks to the wonderful work being done by the hospital preparedness program as they think about hospital coalition and the work done by the local and state health department. you really have to integrate your plan and look cohe'sively what you're doing in the community. i want to remind you, you individually have a role to play to protect yourself, your family, and protect your community. >> yes, you go back to your slide showing half the folks who were serving didn't have that kind of a plan. it gives you a sense of the dimension of that part of the problem. yes. go ahead. >> hi, my name is danielle. i'm representing an organization called amplify. toward the idea or piggybacking off the idea -- receiving data when networks go down and disasters. i'm talking about the black box
issue. a lot of exchanging data is reliant upon broadband and towers and effected in the emergency disasters. i was curious about any effort to, you know, go about that to try to eliminate issues that arise from this. >> let me start by saying it would be nice to have that problem. our biggest problem is still the lack of having all the information in a data system anywhere, and building a robust electronic medical records system. when you tbhaild. you have to build a redundancy you talked about. i think that's very important. this is not a proof of concept here. after katrina, it was very clear those systems that had electronic medical records that
ability to reconstruct patients, medication lists, and medical problems and things were enhanced. we did see that again, lesson learned from katrina. fast forward to hurricane sandy. the hospitals in new york that had a robust system, and new york city's health department put in place a fairly robust medical records system, and they were also able to very rapidly reconstruct that information. but it does rely on not just having the information in one place, but having a robust, hardened backup system and maybe two for that data, and capacity to rapidly reintegrate the networks when they have the disasters. >> go ahead. >> thank you. my name is -- [inaudible] i'm with the organization called the secure id coalition. my question piggybacks nicely
off your question. when you talk about electronic medical records and having data on a second benefit. what and how people are treated in an emergency situation. i'm remind of a story in texas last year there was a demonstration and the american medical association did about having smart cards on people. and the information on them like allergy to a medicine. which allowed for better treatment. there was one group who -- the first group which was a normal population without any information. the second had the cards and the information on them. secured readers encrypted all of that in a regular setting. i was wondering for you heard about that. and what you would think about something. >> actually, i participated in the exercise. i'm very much familiar with it. i think a couple of things. anything we can do to better prepare the public to tell us
public heath and health care what kinds of medical conditions they have, other medications they have, other kinds of illnesses that are ultimately going to make them vulnerability in the aftermath of the disaster is important information to have. it's not the only thing. it's not a panacea. first you have to get people remember to take the card with them. when they run out of the house. then you have to make sure that the sites they're going to show up in have the ability to read that card. then the third thing is you have to have the staff that know how to interpret that data and understand that data so they can protect that patient's health. but it is an important mechanism. it could be an important mechanism in saving lives and ensuring people get the right help when they need it. >> was there any resistance to that initiative on the basis of privacy concerns? >> interesting, they did a
series of -- while it was an issue that was raised, it wasn't one that was enough to say we can't look at it as an option. clearly people will always be concerned about where their private information is going. as we have experienced over the last number of months with releasing of information and people wondering how much assets the government has, information on them to -- it will always be a concern. the overarching message we need to look at the best interest of the people. in this case, we know many people come to shelters during the storm having a number of medical illnesses. many of them only know, i take a white pill before i go bed, i take a purple pill in the morning. they don't know the name and the dos age of their medication. anything that the public health and health care community request have access to to help
them better treat that individual, i think, is warranted. >> thank you. >> we have a question that maybe rosanne can take initial crack at. in past disasters, many people would not evacuate when told they could not bring their pets with them. what steps are being taken to ensure the safety of animals in future disasters? what do you do about dogs in louisiana? >> well, i think i died i want to come back as a pet. you have a lot of stuff you would be provided and well taken care of. but that is true. katrina, there were instants of people because they were attached to the pet and either get separated or couldn't bring their bet with them. we have some very robust plans when it comes to enabling of an evacuation both with coach buses and along with a coach buses there are other type of vehicles you put the pet on the vehicles
usually tagging along behind, the coach bus. people have different type of pets. they are not always small little dogs. they can be large animals, and they have a lot of people on the bus, of course the people that have vulnerable issues don't want to have the pets on the bus with them. you get in all kinds of operational, logics details when you try to organization an evacuation. not only the big dogs but so you snakes, and some people will put the snake in a, you know, just a bag and in a suitcase. the plastic bag. you get in there and -- [laughter] something comes crawling out. and other people have gecials. it's not -- [inaudible] [laughter] so we have cages, pet cages, we have the vet community and the
volunteer community that become very engaged with trying to assist with the type of evacuation. we have got not only general shelters but pet shelters along with it. and it will have people that can visit their pets to take care of their pets. they know what their pet likes to do or not to do. they calm down as well. and jushave the attention. the larger evacuation is not only the human evacuation, but is the evacuation of cattle. so you would not expect that just in talking with health and medical about planning alongside your partners. i didn't realize this. every time you have sea water get in to the eyes of cattle, they go blind. did you know that? okay. i guess i taught you something today. you have an evacuation. we needs lots of -- we have e mack. i don't know if you know that.
state to state contract of trying to get some assistance from other states. we have the cowboys, and their horses to come down and help with an evacuation of cattle. so we have all kinds of evacuation lanes that go on between human movement, pet movement, cattle movement, hospital movement, nursing home movement, and the state is right in the middle of your local communities and all of these needs, and there are just sometimes overwhelmed. again, we're advocating we can get the grant dollars to help us with planning. >> jack, what about the snakes? [laughter] >> i have seen many of snake in my travels. we chuckle about this. but really, pet preparedness is very, very serious. in fact, the reluctance of people to leave their pets does create threats to injury and death. and so health departments as part of their planning criteria
have to talk about what they are doing to working with their community in order prepare for how individuals might evacuate with their pets or what kind of plans they have in the event of disasters in their community. and organizations like the american red cross are working with national and local organizations, veterinarians to increase pet preparedness, and medical reserve corps. even are looking for veterinarians and other animal specialists to work alongside other health care professionals to be able to respond to pet needs during disasters. anyone else want to throw in a pet comment? okay. we have several questions people submitted by card we would like to get our panel's response to. as we have seen this person, writes, over the past several
years. climate logical disasters. natural ones have been occurring more frequently and greater severity, often leading to infectious disease outbreaks and technological catastrophe. what steps, if any, are cbc and nato taking to address the ramifications of climate change? specifically at the state and local level, which i guess means rosanne, if you want to chime in. we would like that hear that. >> i guess from an operation standpoint, the disasters we have approximately 30 state declared disasters a year. usually that means state starts to lean forward and notify all the local what we call parish departments to start being ready whether to respond. whether that be to flooding, tornadoes, what are we doing? we have a lot of frequent --
we call it the live lab. it's no longer just a plan. we are actively engaged. we're trying to be in response. we do eat up a lot of funding for that. so i guess that's just another plug for, yes, we are seeing that natural -- that increase of -- disasters, that's requiring states and the locals to start ramping up at least 30 times a year. >> how about nationally? >> so the health association has been working very diligently since about '99 with cbc. to do a serious of things. first of all bring awareness to public health practitioners. and strengthen their skills and helping build capacity until the commune -- communities.
they do two things. number one, adaption. try to figure out how to adapt to the community. and to be involved in the mitigation aspect of it. what does it mean? number one, you know, one of the challenges we have all of these very severe climate event is one rebuilding in the same places not changing the way we're building. not putting up sea wall when they need to be up. one of the lessons learned i think katrina the hospitals are moving their generators from the basement where we used to put them and putting them in other places including on higher floors. you learn new lessons when you do. john talked about fuel lesson. we have a lot of older cities. a lot of older cities have wires in the air. and those are vulnerable to
trees falling on them and disrupting power lines. i think getting public health at the table so they are part of the discussion. we are often thinking about public health now being at the table for hurricanes and tornadoes. but also think about stream weather events things that are too cold. you see a lot of extreme weather events whether we get lots of snow and ice, et. cetera, in places not designed to get snow and ice. the housing isn't built for very cold weather. the same thing is happening in places that are getting very hot weather for long period of time. that are more at risk for heat-related injuries. high humidity for three or four day and prolonged heat. building those plan so you can address educating community, making sure you have water to drink, identifying where
vulnerable populations are so that when the power goes out. you can get to the people and get them plugged in to some place that is either cooler or they can get their medical needs met or their dependent on electronic equipment or medical equipment for getting them there. all of those things that have to to happen to have a stronger health role in doing that. but as jack said, most of this happens at the community level. the local community level. and requires people -- any expertise to make it happen. >> we have time for a few more questions. one from a congressional staffer asking what is being done ensure populations with language barriers of aware of the services that are available during a disaster.
jack? >> i think we talk about all the important issues that go in to disaster preparedness, and certainly this is one of those that ranks right up there. when an individual is here in the primary language is not english, if presents a vulnerability for them. especially in a predominantly english-speaking society where there may not be services to translate those important educational material and other information in to different languages of those -- that those individuals speak in the communities. let me call out seattle county. has done an amazing job. they found a way to work with partners to translate many of their disaster preparedness seller -- materials to multiple languages that reflect their community. but they first needed to go out and find out what languages people spoke in those
communities, and work with the leaders of those communities whether they were religious or otherwise. to help translate the materials and educate the communities about what they need to do during times of disaster. what services would be available to them. and how they could take care of themselves and protect their family members. >> the get ready campaign. we have fax sheets in about fifty languages. so get ready campaign is very much designed for the community and individual -- individualities in the community get ready. we are working hard with everything in multiple languages. i can't tell you -- not everything in fifty languages. we have fifty different languages for the various -- faxes we have. let me just ask as we're dealing with the last questions that you fill out that green, blue, blue
evaluation form that you you'll find in the packet. we can respond to your wishes and needs in the future programs. for the panel, the questioner asks that you speak to social media, and how state and local health departments are using social media for preparedness and response. jack, you are our leadoff hilter. >> all right. social media is has just exploded on the disaster preparedness front. i think i had one of the fortunate opportunities to be in the red cross national headquarter disaster operations center during hurricane sandy and part of my job volunteer at the time was to work on monitoring social media and better understanding what were the public health and mental health challenges that
individuals were experiencing, and writing over social media technology. we were flooded with thousand upon thousands, millions upon millions of tweets and facebook posts and other things of people talking about the disaster and the experiences they going through at the time. it was a lesson that somehow we have to do better at being able to monitor social media, and quickly respond to the needs and expectations of those individuals and community. it creates quite a demand on public health in an effort to better understand how the community is using social media technology. to communicate their needs and an outlet for situation nalt awareness as to what is happening in the community during the time of disaster. i can tell you nationally our
twitter -- we have a quarter of million people on our social media activity. the twitter is@getready. when something happens we are always putting out information so people can begin having a conversation and get information about the event. >> similarly at cbc we are embracing social media. classically people think of it as a way to share information. we are are the third largest government twitter feed. it's a way to listen to the communities. we monitor social media aggressively and about to put out project that will be available to our communities called project dragon fire as way to understand what is going on in the community quickly and take action based on linking to other federal agencies. in today's day in age it's a wonderful way to get targeted information to the communities. >> all right.
>> i think we're at the point to call on the doctor for closing remarking or two. >> great. well, thank you. to the panel for coming and all of you for listening. and asking really probing and important questions. i think perhaps the most critical take away is if you think about being in a place where you have state or local government who is going to be responsible for helping your community recover from a disaster. you don't want the individuals to be exchanging business cards at the site of the disaster. you want to know they have been talking to each other. but you also heard that it's equally as important for people to know and to think about this. the time to think about a disaster is not when the hurricane is bearing down on your house. you want to think about the escape route before that. all of that means that these mechanisms need to be in place.
they need to be tested. and people need to be reminded. in years ago when i was back -- state government, around many of the nuclear power plants we handed out bill for eye done. -- iodine. if there's a disaster people should take iodine to protect the thyroid. how many of those people know where the pills are today? this process of ongoing preparedness of making the system reminding people what will enable us to have the best outcome so the people of the country cannot only survive but survive in a way that will enable them to quirkily return back to the normal way of life. >> thank thank you very much, john. don't forget about the vails -- evaluations. b., i want to call attention to aaron on our staff. who is finishing up an intership
at george washington university and did the bulk of the work on the briefing as an exercise both academic and real world. thank you very much, erin. and -- [applause] and something john can't do, that is to thank the robertwood johnson foundation for the involvement and the shaping and support and the cosponsorship of the briefing. let me thank the panelist and help us thank them for a extremely useful and rich discussion on a very tough topic. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] president obama talking with his national security team today on the violence in egypt. announcing that the u.s. is scrapping joint u.s.-egypt military exercise scheduled for next month saying cooperation with the egyptian continue when
civilians are being killed in the. here is president obama speaking in martha's vineyard where he and his family are vacationing. >> good morning, everybody. i just finished a discussion with my national security team about the situation in egypt. i want to provide an update about the response to the event in the left side several days. let me begin by stepping back if a moment, the relationship between the united states and egypt goes back decades. it's rooted in our respect of egypt as a nation, as an ancient center of civilization, and corner san stone for peace in the middle east. it's also rooted in or tie to be the egyptian people. forged through a long standing partnership.
over two years ago, american was inspired the change. as millions of egyptians took to the street and demand the government that was responsive to thes a per ration for political freedom and economic opportunity. we said at the time that change would not come quickly or easily. we did align ourselves with a set of principles. nonviolence within respect for universal rights, and a process for political and economic reform. in doing so, we were guided by values, but also by interests. we believe nations are more stable and more successful when they are guided by the principles as well. that's why we are so concerned by recent events. we appreciate the complexity of the situation. mohammed morsi was elected president in a democratic election. his government was not
inclusive, and did not respect the view of all egyptians. we know that many egyptians, millions of egyptians, perhaps a majority of egyptians were calling for a change in course. while we do not believe that force is the way to resolve political differences, after the military's intervention several weeks ago, there remain a chance for reconciliation, and opportunity to pursue a democratic path. instead, we have seen a more dangerous path taken through a broad crack dpown on mr. morsi's associations and supporters, and now tragically, violence has taken the lives of hundreds of people and wounded thousands more. the united states strongly condemns the steps that have been taken by egypt interim government and security forces. we deplore violence against
civilians. we support universal rights stoacial human dignity. including the right to peaceful protest. we oppose the pursuant of marshall law, which denies those rights to citizens under the principle security trumps individual freedom or fight makes right. today the united states extend the condolences to the families who were killed, and those who were wounded. given the depth of our partnership with egypt, our national security interest in this pivotal part of the world and the belief that engagement can support transition back to a democratically elected civilian government. we sustained our commitment to egypt and its people, but while we want to sustain our relationship with egypt, our traditional cooperation cannot continue as usual when civilians are being killed in the street. as a result, this morning we
notified the egyptian government that we are canceling our biannual joint military exercise which is scheduled for next month. going forward, i asked my national security teem assess the implication of the action taken by the interim government and further steps we may take if necessary with respect to the u.s.-egyptian relationship. ..
the rights of women and minorities should be respected and commitments must be kept to pursue transparent reforms to the constitution and space elections and parliament. pursuing that path will help egypt meet the space aspirations of its people while attracting the investment, tourism and international support that can help it deliver opportunities to its citizens. violence on the other hand will only feed the cycle of polarization that isolates the egyptians from one another, and from the world that continues to hamper the opportunity for egypt to get back on the path of economic growth. let me make one final point. america cannot determine the future of egypt. that's a task for the egyptian people. we don't take sides with any
particular party or political figure. i know it's tempting inside of egypt to blame the united states or the west or some other outside actor for what's gone wrong. we have been blamed by supporters of morsi. we've been blamed by the other side as if we are supporters of morsi. that kind of approach will do nothing to help egyptians achieve the future that they deserved. we want egypt to succeed. we want a peaceful, space, prosperous egypt. that's our interest. but to achieve that, the egyptians are going to have to do the work. we recognize that change takes time and that a process like this is never guaranteed. there are examples in recent history of countries that are
transitioned us out of a military government towards a space government and does not always go in a straight line and the process wasn't always smooth. there are going to be false starts. there will be difficult days. america's space journey took us through some struggles to perfect average union. from asia to the america we know the space transitions are measured not in months but in years and sometimes in generations. so, in the spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect, i want to be clear that america wants to be a partner in the egyptians pursuit of a better future and we are guided by our national interest in this long standing relationship. about our partnership must also advance the principles that we believe in. and so many egyptians have sacrificed for these last several years. no matter what party or faction they belong to. so, america will work with all of those in egypt and around the
world who support a future of stability that rests on a foundation of justice and peace and dignity. thank you very much. >> more than 500 people are dead and thousands injured after clashes between the military-backed government and supporters of president morsi. despite the rising death toll in egypt the muslim brotherhood supporters of the president morsi urged street demonstrations today and the egyptian authorities have authorized police to use deadly force to protect themselves and key institutions from attack. who best represents the future of your political party? we look at established and upcoming political figures and ask republicans, democrats and
third party supporters to come in and tell us who they are watching and looking to lead their party into the next presidential election and beyond. here is a preview. >> i know this might be some interest but how we make women's issues a message on the democratic platform issue, and dependent? it seems that we are so locked into partisan -- >> i wouldn't be here if it weren't for independent voters. in misery it's about a third, a third and a third, and there's about 40% of missouri that wouldn't vote for me no matter what and there's about a third that would vote for me no matter what. [laughter] and so there is this metal. and most of those folks in the middle are perfectly willing to vote for a republican or
democrat. and they like compromise. they like moderation. so why do think that one of the things we need to do is make sure we are communicating with independent voters across this country. that if we always put on our hats of being a political party first, we are going to lose those independent voters. we have a wonderful opportunity in this country right now because the shining object in the republican party do not translate well to independent voters. they translate very well to the base of the republican party. and you all and all i know one of this very, very well. your caucuses are famous for picking the republicans that are not anywhere near the middle. [laughter] and really, that is an opportunity for us. if we continue to talk about the issues that most americans talk about, which is can i afford to send my kids to college? am i going to have a retirement?
is their health care? is the bridge down the road safe? can i drive over it? these are -- these are macroissues to be at he says no, macaroni and cheese issues that she wants to talk about. [laughter] and even the macaroni and cheese issues that we are focused on and we keep talking about those we are going to get those independent voters that sheila king, ted cruce, rand paul and all of the others want to be. [applause] >> more about the future of political parties tonight on c-span's town hall. this program is on a variety of topics and airs live tuesday, wednesday and thursday evening from seven to 9 p.m. eastern for about the congressional recess. now, the challenges of peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in post war countries like iraq, afghanistan and moly.
the discussion is hosted by the stimson center includes stuart bowen, special inspector general for iraq reconstruction. this is about an hour and a half >> good morning, everyone i'm delighted to welcome you to the stimson center on this muggy august conversation between war and peace. do we need new tools for the messy transition. we are gathering at the time that we can see the end of both of the iraq and the afghanistan engagements, and this event in a way is pivoted of around the also by the special the inspector general for the iraqi reconstruction, stuart bowen, to present some of the findings of his final report. so the special the inspector general office, which was created in 2004, is now completing its work. and so it is a moment of reflection and looking back at what are some of the lessons of iraq to it but we know that iraq
and many ways is such an out lawyer and it may be an exception of the kind of engagement both the united states, the u.n., the other parts of the international community to prepare for perhaps things on a smaller scale, or places of less strategic consequences for the united states. but we have been struggling with this question of stability operations, post conflict, stabilization, how to do state building, peacebuilding etc. for a generation now. and we have on our panel three people who bring very distinct and valuable perspectives on how to think about these issues moving forward. we are going to begin with stuart bowen. as i said, he is wrapping up more than a decade of distinguished service as the special inspector general for iraq reconstruction. in his prior life, he's an attorney. he worked in several capacities when george w. bush was the founder of texas. the halon affiliation and they
were delighted that stuart bowen has developed such innovative and attractive materials to understand. i think it really is held that there's a lot of visual presentation of lessons and iraq and the very complicated story of funding what didn't work very well. and how we can do betterh next te. we have invited stuart bowen to meet his presentations first. we will then turn to jim schear, who has recently finished his second tour of the pentagon as an assistant secretary for responsibility for stability operations in his earlier career he was a research scholar at the national defense university, director of research there and worked throughout his career on these questions of stabilization and reconstruction including at the u.n. and some of its early post of war success stories in cambodia, the balkans and elsewhere.
so how did stuart bowen ideas, what kind of responses were there more broadly in the pentagon and the interagency community and his own reflections on what would be the right tools or the right mechanisms to respond to the post conflict environment. and we are very delighted to have leanne smith, who is currently the director of -- let me get the right title, the policy and best practice service. she has been in that position for a year. she has a long career as an australian diplomat and as a person who's worked on humanitarian law and has worked both in the ngo world and in the government systems and in both legal and diplomatic positions. so, we really do want to bring and how does the broad international community and all these questions. and our own bill and allyson who may be here and earthecho directors of the program of peace operations and grapple with the same questions from the
human perspective. so we are really glad to be able to broaden the lens and have both leanne smith and to offer how does the u.n. prepare and plan and organize itself for its very broad array of post conflict deployment and responsibilities. so, i think one last thought i wanted to share is in a way what you are going to hear about today is the mechanisms the governmental practices, the procedures. but we want to remember that before any of that gets put into motion, there are some very important policy questions and even political deliberations that are required. what level of engagement and responsibility does the international community feel it has or should have for some of these engagements. so let's recall that even prior to the decisions that we are going to be talking about today are some very difficult policy decisions that have to be made
to put this all in motion. so without further ado, we are delighted to have you year-to-date. >> thank you come ellen come and to the stimson center for hosting this event. it is an honor to be here and an honor to be on this panel with jim and leanne. and the fee system today is is the united states well integrated to plan, execute and oversee stabilization operations? the answer is no, we are not yet sufficiently well integrated to accomplish such. and that reform is needed. the three premises at the outset that we agree on, and then we will get into the meat of the subject to a net of one is the iraq reconstruction program
didn't go well. our audits and inspection 390 of them demonstrate that fact. but as important are the audits on the reports and the final one is learning from iraq which puts forward seven lessons that the government and the interagency should take to heart but the most important one is the substance of this morning stock and the need to form some sort of interagency capacity that improves the current structure. the second point is by definition the inner agency is not well integrated at this juncture. and the evidence continues to be revealed in afghanistan, and the question of rises in afghanistan today and it arose in iraq as well. who is in charge of the reconstruction program? it is an issue that the special inspector general for the afghan
reconstruction has raised and it is an issue that the commission on the wartime contract and raised in its hearings and in a hearing on march 2010. jim is a part of the panel that delved into that and the panel concluded or the commission concluded out of that that there wasn't clear at the end integration and a good answer for who is in charge. we've got to be able to answer that question better. and the third promise is how can we move forward with an effective path towards reform. the reality is spelled out in chapter two of learning from iraq. the americans i interviewed both leadership from iraq, leadership on the hill concurred the path to reform must be towards the integrated capacity.
the iraqi identified for me in their interviews frustration about the fact state and defense interlocutors were themselves at war and they spend more time bickering than providing aid. the chief of staff to the prime minister underscored this. he said instead of getting help from the state and defense he had to observe a constant conflict. and indeed, ambassador hill in iraq in 2010 said the iraqi reconstruction amounted to a bureaucratic clash of cultures in the state and ambassador jeffrey echoed that fact and agreed that we need the reform to improve our approach. general wallsten in my interview
with him, the commander of the multinational force-iraq and the u.s. force-iraq. i said the approach that we have suggested in the reporting is a good one and that we should do it. general petraeus echoing some of the sentiments. so the leadership in iraq on both of the state and the defense side with the iraqi is as it is spelled out in this underscores the need for the reform to move towards integration of the interagency capacity to execute stabilization and we construction operations. how to do it that is the question. there are lots of questions and let me firstly out with the current structure is, and then identify the approach that is now possible through h.r. 2606, a bill introduced six years ago by congressmen stockman and welch that is gaining a co-sponsor shift that would implement the kind of reform
that i'm talking about. first of all, within the interagency we have today the bureau conflict stabilization operation. it succeeded the coordinator for the reconstruction stabilization at the state department which did not succeed in carrying out the mission identified when it was effectively authorized through the national security director 44. ambassador john lead that office for years, and he's now a supporter of the proposal but we suggest in learning from iraq and that is proposed in h.r. 2606. we have also in the state department and u.s. aid the office of the transition issue that has been around since the mid nineties to be added as a good job in carrying out the stabilization events, but it is largely done through the contractors to get it's not structured to carry out planning for sycophant stabilization and we construction operations.
at the treasury department, we have the office of technical assistance, which as we pointed out in hard lessons did an excellent job with regards to stabilizing the central bank and the currency conversion. it's one of the good stories from the early days and one of the few. it does its mission well and created a response to the stabilization demands in the early 90's and it's not in an integrated capacity for executing the civilization we construction operations. at the justice department we had a the on the rule of law. rule of law the most important aspect under address earlier on in iraq in the stabilization reconstruction context as it came forward leader and provided assistance but again it is not an integrated office for planning and executing these operations. it's just a piece of it. at the defense department, we saw in 2005 the most revolutionary move i think in doctrine to the army in the 21st
century. and that is the creation of stabilization operations as a doctrine and its now embodied in the army field manual for the dot director 3,000.05. and that has begun a transformation, but it's still somewhat of an ambiguous. unambiguous with regard to what the defense role should be in these operations through the proposal that we have suggested would help resolve that ambiguity. and so, you have the defense from a state, aid, treasury and justice, the big five in the operations. capacities that operate in the stovepiped. but these stovepipes endure and indeed because of their existence, they prevent effective integration. coordination doesn't work. and bus and oversight is not effective and senator mccain in my interview with him and in chapter two of learning from iraq says we need to do the kind
of reform h.r. 26 proposes and but created the u.s. contingency operations that would be charged with planning and executing and overseeing stabilization reconstruction operations. ambassador crocker said of this idea it sets the courts to correct the failure of the sterilization reconstruction operations over the past three decades by establishing usoco the will of dedicated planning and executing future. it will bring together the best of all worlds and provide unity of direction and uninterrupted vision so that the u.s. meets the challenges faced in the future post conflict operation. this from the men preeminently experienced in the field having served during the search successfully in iraq and then again as the ambassador to afghanistan he has been there and he has seen this as a path
forward that can work it the other preeminently experienced person in the field as i said, the man and that led the attempted solution to the problem at the state department for three years says with regards to this proposal it needs the state department trains people in high numbers for stability operations. this is evidence during the engagement in iraq and afghanistan experience has shown that we need a dedicated civilian professional in order to conduct the operations. this is where usoco comes in. would provide the operationalize ready to respond to the emergency abroad. finally, the lieutenant general chief of staff and the multinational corps iraq says the fact of the matter is the department of defense has been in the lead in the most recent stabilization reconstruction of readers. unfortunately, this has created a situation where the core competencies of other deval agencies in the department has not been adequately brought to bear. this is far from the obligation
of the burden among the agencies. a better integration of the government agencies into an entity like the u.s. officer operations as proposed by h.r. 2606 would be a giant step forward. so there is a solution on the table. it could fill this empty space, this lack of responsibility for planning and executing and overseeing these operations but it's a heavy left as they say on capitol hill, as is passing any legislation. the argument has begun an ironclad we are here this morning to continue the discussion and move it forward. >> jim, would you like to broaden the frame and give your own thoughts on the dilemma that is before us? >> thank you so much to you and the stimson center colleagues for orchestrating this conversation. to use the adjective in your invitation, this is a messy issue, and we are discussing it as a messy time.
as we know, the oif is fading and effects of various parts of the world and large scale stabilization reconstruction activities are not well by the would-be recipients were the would-be suppliers. it's a huge challenge and an enduring issue but it's a very messy time. so, to navigate that towards stuart's proposal, let me give a little bit of context here. those of us that have been working on stabilization issues over the last few years have really been focused on three urgent and emerging issues. first is the retrospective peace looking back at the lessons and here i get a big shout out to stuart and colleagues for all
the have done in the iraq context to really explicate a really good solid lessons from the field. that is a function not only of your work and citing fraud, waste and abuse through audits and investigations but more broadly work from the field, looking at the programmatic stuff oif, how it worked, didn't work and could have worked better. it's important that we absorb those lessons. second there is the prospective peace looking ahead. i would say as we look ahead, we are, have been and colleagues still would continue to focus on the preventive peace more and more. and here i would give a big shot out to wreck barton and his team in the state department for their work and developing this
civilian response network, not corps. it's a broad international network which includes a wide variety of expertise and stakeholders from the private sector, non-profit, international partners, civil society members and local regions and countries as diverse as kenya or honduras or burma. that is an interesting development and i hope our state department leadership and colleagues can put energy into that and further develop it because i think that is the key to the important preventive activity. so, the fed peace is what i would call a preservation strategy. we need a strategy for pre-of serving otherwise perishable skills and expertise.
i will mention something that happened earlier. of the secretary of defense chuck hagel a couple months ago signed giving proponents for the stabilization mission to the army. this hadn't happened before. my former office and colleagues, some of whom are here today have been staunch advocates or constructive irritants as i call them, for the mission. but not onerous. joint proponents see in the parliament means you own the mission in the sense of working in a joint context to develop the approach on the structure, core functionality is and who does what and you are responsible to the secretary defense as an important innovation. there's also an ongoing joint capability assessment which we hope will lead to an
understanding of what the other wise perishable capacities and capabilities are that we need to watch. so as we look ahead, obviously it is clear that we are in a downsizing mode. ground forces are going to be cut. we know this. we also know that there is a traditionalist argument which, as a history buff, i.e. understand that sro forces aren't always prepared to launch back into the combat. at the end of the 19th century the brits had been fighting counterinsurgency in africa. they didn't have a clue on the trench warfare in world war i. in 1950, the eighth army occupying in japan, doing stabilization most crossed into south korea not well prepared to defend against the armor assault
having said that, let me also say the current contact does provide continued incentive for the forces especially the land forces to continue to embrace this mission. the irregular warfare context and the asymmetric threats we find in various parts of the world where the u.s. military might be called upon to operate does give an incentive to the populace population center like to understand the human terrain i think that is important in terms of preserving the doctrine expertise, training, the ability to maneuver the surveillance reconnaissance, engineering people become a transitional policing and other things so there are incentives to keep the capabilities.
okay. let me quickly turned to the proposal. please count me as a sympathetic skeptic. we need to give consideration to his proposal and we also need to look hard at the political and the bureaucratic dynamics it might shape inadvertently and will identify three things. first 1i would call the mainstream versus the separation issue. right now the biggest concern is how to mainstream the expertise in the existing democracies. i worry that setting that a separate entity to do that relieves pressure on those bureaucracies that can outsource. some of you will recall the army's attachment in the 1990's to what they call the operations other than war concept. as we watched that metastasize, it became a concern for certain
constituencies in the army that to work on other than war was to get into what i would call operations other than what i signed up for. [laughter] so we don't want to do that and go through that phase again and by not saying that it necessarily would be the in that trend but it's certainly something that has to be considered. the second issue is what i would call the field of dreams problem field of dreams if we build it they will come. it worked great for kevin costner building a baseball diamond in central lawyer what and worked for the commander of allied force building refugee camps in northern macedonia because once they were built, the refugees came. the obverse problem though is
that if you are nervous about using a certain capability, hitting the button is when to be hard if something is going to happen you don't want to happen. and i worry that our leaders in the white house and the state department or the defense department are going to be nervous about hitting the button when they should be hitting it to do the planning and preparation if they think it is going to lead to something which at the end of the day they want to avoid. i think there would be a great reinforcement from the regional offices throughout the bureaucracy. i would be very concerned about what i call the field of dreams problem. a third, i'm not convinced this action makes the chain of command easier. i think it may actually complex it. i heard one general officers say that at the end of the day and ambassador will never report to
the general and a general will never report to an ambassador. there has to be unity of effort. and actually, general david petraeus and ambassador ryan crocker work very well. but i take stuart's point that early in the iraq mission there were serious issues and there was bureaucratic warfare. that's the reality. i think there are ways to deal with that. i'm not sure that usoco resolved the chain. so where do i end up on this? i think at the end of the day there are several we can talk about in the general conversation here. i think what i would call we need is a position to ramp up quickly. that is preserving critical capabilities but then the capacity to move up quickly if we get into a large footprint situation which will be rare,
but it's a low probability, high impact and oftentimes a sudden onset type of situation. we also need a value added approach. we need to have sro expertise and high-level discussions generally lead from the mss and this was part of stuart's set of recommendations on the greater role. i do think the nss needs to step up to this more than they have done. it's very important to ensure the value added for the regionally focused discussions on what do we do now. i would trumpet the work of the prevention board on this regard. it's working on areas where there isn't a lot of visibility right now because all of our
public focus is on the middle east and north africa but it is making i think a useful contribution in helping to foster collegial work between the defense diplomatic and the intel community as well. looking at issues where violence could be lying around the corner so their needs to be a value-added approach. i have a few other things the right went on for too long. i'm happy to turn it back to you. >> that was very helpful. leanne now from the peacekeeping operations. >> thank you, ellen the chance to share our experience with you all. obviously i think i'm coming from a different perspective, a multilateral perspective but it struck me from some of the comments already have many similarities there are between what you are facing and what we
are facing as well. also, the differences. james, you talk about an ambassador never reporting to a general. in peacekeeping we have over 100 nationalities according to one hit of the u.n. in the country and quite often for a commander from one country having to report to that civilian head. so we see some of these challenges playing out in terms of our effectiveness and operations during we call it christmas tree mandates from the security council that if peacekeeping and end of jobs that we may or may not be suited to and may or may not have the particular civilian expertise to handle. so i got a lot from that. thank you. some of the work that we are doing in relation to not only how we integrate and try to do things better on the ground but how we get out of the place in a sustainable way. this has become a big issue in
recent years in the countries like haiti where the u.n. has gone in and has gone back again. we are trying to understand what went wrong in those situations and where the gaps were that we missed and why it involved us having to go back to the main objective being what we do on the ground as peacekeepers is sustainable in terms of the broad peacebuilding objectives for the community and the u.n. as well. that is my job largely. i had the best practice in peacekeeping and the main function is to try to learn the lessons from where we have perhaps best things of in the past and we get something right and we can apply those lessons to new situations. what we can learn from the other missions in that region and other parts of the world both get in the as soon as possible. >> as the peacekeepers we can
work ourselves out of the job constantly for people to feel like they have an investment to make sure the work gets done. as peacekeepers historically i think we get a mandate from the security council and when we are finished we pack up and get out. we started realizing that approach to transition is not effective and that there is a lot we need to do with our partners in the u.n. and the host government as well to make sure that it is sustainable. we have been working with our missions on the ground particularly those in liberia and he be. and number two to try to get a sense what the problems have been and what they think we can do better.
so the policy is based on those lessons from the missions and also based on pressure to be on the tremendous states for what happened here and why weren't your efforts more sustainable and what could you have done better. s in particular they've been supporting and helping us to develop this body of work. the policy itself is how the u.n. peacekeeping missions transition out of the country. there are a lot of other kind of transition as the u.n. faces from humanitarian to development for example. but we thought that would be good to start with the particular aspect of the peacekeeping mission departs because that is where there was the biggest gap in peace keeping. the whole idea of the policy is to improve both the management and the planning of the transitions at the headquarters level in new york and on the ground with the u.n. peacekeeping mission and the country. what we tried to do is develop roles and responsibilities to make clear that everybody that has a stake in all of this knows
what they are supposed to do and when and construct the response devotee to cut the more difficult aspects of this kind of work. we cannot put the set at five principles i thought i might share with you and some of them may be are relevant to the same kind of lesson learning a purchase you are having in places like afghanistan. i have been in afghanistan for two years from 2005 to 2007 and worked closely in the field on some interesting places and i saw a lot of similarities with the struggles that you are having and that we are having, too and i think obviously for the u.n., the u.s. transition out of afghanistan there's a lot of interesting stuff there for the u.n. to take on the board as a transition partner. in terms of work that many to be ongoing. so we can up with these five principles and none of them are brain surgery but it was good to articulate them. the first is for the transition process the number one thing we need to do is start planning early. so from the day that we hit the
ground in the country we need to be planning for our departure. i am glad to say that in emission in south sudan is a brand new mission that started at the outset seeing here is our mandate, what are the objectives, how can we benchmark them and what will we know when we have gotten there. so making some progress on that early planning. the second principle in the policy is about an integrated u.n. response. so getting peacekeepers with their uniforms or civilian to understand they are not in a country of iran, they are there to work with other partners to in related or similar work and they need to be working with them on the transition planning as well from the beginning. for example if on the rule of law officer of the peacekeeping mission i need to be working with colleagues in the u.n. development programs from the beginning to see how my part fits with what they are doing and when i go how do we hand it
on. this is a big intellectual shift for the peacekeeping. the third principle in the policy is about the national ownership. whatever we are doing has to be based on what is happening in the host country and the host government, civil society across-the-board. so how do we take our work around the national priorities of the country that we are working in? how do we make sure the government of the country that we are working with appreciates the approach that we are taking if they are not interested in the early departure were staying too long that we won't be effected at all. the fourth principle is similar but distinct and that is about the national capacity development. helping even though they are not capacity building experts from the minute the hit the ground the need to be working with national partners within sight of the u.n. peacekeeping and also the government and civil society not just to do things for them or tell them how to do
things that help them do the things we are doing so that when there is a sustainable capacity left behind. i'm sure for the u.s. government we face a similar issue talking about the capacity development all the time that a lot of the societies and governments we are working with that capacity is and there's of it's not as easy as it might sound. you have to identify the capacity from an early stage because it takes a long time to do. on the fifth principle, it's quite pragmatic and that is how do you communicate while you are in a place, what are you going to do and how are you going to get out and maybe for the u.n. particularly when you're not going to be able to do and how do you communicate that to the government that you are working with? how do you communicate it to the population broadly and to your own staff inside of your mission whether they are international or national staff? i think there's an aspect of
being as transparent and honest as possible with all of those kind of partners we haven't been good at before that raise expectations about what we would be able to what chief if we are honest on the outset we should have been more realistic. so the other principals the policy operates under and it may be just to draw a couple other aspects that might be interesting for the discussion, what we are working on is the value of benchmarking. how much can you get out of benchmarking. how rigorous is that as a process. what do you do if you set a set of benchmarks that are not achievable in the public will timeframe you have technical benchmarks and the political reality on the perception surveys the benchmarking as a quantitative measure but the public perception survey is a qualitative measure how does your average afghan war feel about their security and how does that impact on understanding where they are up
to. related to that benchmarking is another process they are trying to do how much time it takes to do that and what they are working with and so when we see this sign for peacekeeping to leave liberia, we do not always have a sense of what that means and what tasks there are to hand over, what capacity the partner has to pick up those tasks, whether they are in the government or the u.n. country or with other partners so that is something we are focusing on a lot right now. the other thing is to know what to enter heaven after we transition out of the place. so for example we spent the last few years assuming the mission was going to leave and the u.n. political mission was going to take over so the change of government before the transition was due to happen and we found there won't be any security council will or political
mission there will just be the expanded presence so we could have done a better job of contingency planning around this and that is something they are working on at the moment as well. the last thing i mentioned is how do we get better at a meeting with the political and the financial support for the country that we have been working in after we go. they've been bringing it to the table the lens of the security council and they bring a lot of money and debt. once the country is off the agenda we find our other partners in the field are offered a lot less money and less staff to finish big jobs that we didn't get around to finishing. so those are the kind of issues that we have been at dressing. and i would be happy to answer any questions that may come up. >> those are three really fascinating presentations pete and i am going to take the liberty of posing a quick question to each of the three
speakers and i'm going to turn to bill and then the floor will be open to your comments and questions. so a lot of the things you said resonate with how these issues get the data i think in the united states exit strategy is what we talk a lot about is there an exit strategy the u.s. military wants to know, you know, how long is the commitment right at the beginning. but the sort of flip side of that is worrying about too much public communication about our own exit plan because the been the bad guys just wait us out and no, they only have to be patient for another 12 months and then the field will be open to them again. this is an argument that's been made in afghanistan and iraq in our own sort of political discourse the party of power loves to school with the power in party -- party in power for talking too much thinking it is kind of exposing.
could you talk a little bit because you linked communication strategies and the notion that the u.n. has to set a finite date to its engagement. does the u.n. also worry about talking about the exit means that it can exacerbate the situation on the rough? >> that is a great question. we don't talk about exit, point blank. that is a language we have decided not to use. the transition policy is about reconfiguring the presence on the ground so it may be tricky to talk about that we but we don't talk about the exit of the peacekeeping mission we talk about the reconfiguration of the presence and in the san way for the u.s. maybe you have a significant military drawdown but the continued presence in the country during a whole range of things so that maybe the military peacekeepers will leave that the u.n. country for us will have been on the drug probably before and it will be
on the ground afterwards, so it is a different way of communicating that message and obviously you can't avoid the realities that is how we are trying to deal with it. >> would you like to comment on that issue? >> the first one was planning for departure. but i think in the u.s. military has i heard what the success looks like i think one of the reasons that iraq free construction program lasted ten years almost is that we didn't have a plan that looked that far down the road. we had benchmarks that fell victim to political realities. you're other point out of the principal, providing integration and responsibility that would assign the duty of thinking about that very important question so that we don't have
ten -- in afghanistan, ten to 12 year stabilization operations. i think leanne, your spot on on all of those. you have to think about the end before it even starts. before the first foot lands on the country that is being heated. >> i have a different question for you. since you have them both in the learning a part of the defense community, the national defence universities institute for strategic studies, and in a more action policy to become policy oriented job. so we gather all the smart people to do these reflections on lessons learned, but then when the reality hits and these deployments are sort of a six month turnover, people are actually in the field for very short periods of time. what is your sense of how much learning or to the scholars learned and the action folks
have to get the sort of cliffs notes version of the learning? how much of these insights get absorbed by the people being deployed for short tours? >> fascinating question. and it speaks i think the importance of lifelong learning, of practitioner education as one goes forward through a career scholars and the policy world to live differently. they think differently. if you recall long ago by henry david thoreau lamenting we have all become tools of our tool. you have to understand how tools work in washington and downrange and understand and stuart's world, legal authorities, funding, how to work effectively in the interagency domain what can we bring together and you
have to cast the net wisely. this is a challenge for the stabilization community because the need to be inclusive. everyone needs to be in the room. that can create a little bit of thanks that the very senior levels if it is a delicate issue where the future direction isn't clear. but the human-resources peace i think is hugely sycophant. i do think at various phases of the career, the management capacity and the ability to understand who knows what and who brings what to the table can be very helpful especially if the country team level. the generals don't report to investors, but investors are the leading voice and but country x or y and coordination is required. having fun country team up with the right level of skills and capabilities worked quite well
when the country like columbia at various points in time, for example it's really vital. so why wouldn't accept that there's going to be inevitable differences between scholars and practitioners but the have to work together and that is the challenge. >> before we open it up, i wanted to ask you to comment a little bit on the cost implications of your proposal. you have spent a decade now worrying how the taxpayers' money is being spent. did we waste money, spend on the wrong things, etc.. can you tell us a little but whether you considered the cost implications? are you talking about the bricks and mortar new building a new agency, where what is it in the process? for the the defense and the state department no longer do things so that usoco would be the sort of magnetic pole of where the capability reside?
because my worry with the new office as logical as it sounds is that it doesn't necessarily compel the other parts of the system to stop doing what they already do. puentes that the cost efficiency consideration. >> great question. thank you. first yes we thought about this carefully. and indeed in the bill there is a vision that ensures it is budget neutral out of the box. the expense is relatively small to the office would achieve that 25 million a year anticipating 125 employees. it would be scalable along the lines leanne was discussing. it's critical to carrying out these missions. it would sit as an independent office reporting to the desk somewhat like the eca reported to the secretaries. that is a precedent. it's also my reporting chain and
worked fine and i think it grasped the current reality but the stabilization reconstruction operations. the defense and the state are going to play significant roles in them and that certainly is a lesson from afghanistan and iraq. that answers the question of costing and the structure. you're third point how does it resolve the integration coordination question. is it a leader in the bureaucracy and the answer is no because this space isn't filled yet. there are five different offices in five different stovepiped agencies carrying out different aspects of the mission yet no one is bringing it together before the operation begins to depend on the serendipitous confluence of the favorable personalities as they occur with general petraeus and the ambassador crocker is not a strategy. serendipity is not a strategy.
we need planning. as eisenhower said, planning is everything. the process gets you resilient and gets you to clarity and ultimately victory in these operations and keeps them short and would ensure that we wouldn't have a constant turnover which more than anything else contributed to the length of the operation. everyone really not stay in longer than a year. the reality would be structurally like fema so when they have their mission declared in the presidential declaration it has the capacity, it has multi a jurisdictional capacity, and it has already prepared with contractors and with analyzing with the situations might be and therefore when it engages there isn't a long ramp up period where you had the free-for-all
zone as someone explained in the first year. that is unacceptable and we can do better and i think we will. >> i would like to invite my colleague, bill, who founded the pri in the future operations and exit now. any comment or point that you want to make? >> a couple of comments and a couple of clarity's. thank you, ellen. three excellent presentations. there is always a tension between the need for the rapid action in the aftermath of the conflict, and the long-term need to build new post conflict political culture that is more conducive to nonviolence politics than of one that it replaces. so, part of the problem is the sheer difficulty of pulling up the damage or the fragile state. and about the single-payer ready is against the history making them worse pity and my first question as to leanne a. and that is that the policy
balances reflecting the national priorities with a very specific question to adapt to the unforeseen security setbacks. so i guess the question is what the security setbacks are a function of the national policy? how do you all deal with that? the second has to do with of possible military questions on the field. as the u.n. military in the field answers to the civilian authority in the complex operations, and it has for 20 years, u.s. military forces are capacity on loan for the u.n.. they are not the heart and guts of the u.s. foreign policy or the international engagement. but u.s. military forces are. so they are much more central to the u.n. presence -- the u.s. presence in the action. especially in the conflict affected areas. so, my question is for jim and fer stuart.
we can keep going or because oregon and recognize the circumstances. obviously, it would be our preference to seek until the conditions are right. it will always be a political decision and financial decision. if i could just add those related points to which you mentioned. in addition to policy, we've also been working on what we are calling it peacebuilding strategy for peacekeeping. peacekeeping gets sent into a place to help stabilize and bring peace and security and create an environment for broader peacekeeping goals. but we also do his peacebuilding committees. without this strategy over the last two years that looks more broadly to other treats are doing and is basically about three rows of peacekeepers. the first is to articulate what the cause for that country are
and how the government that we are an articulate the peacebuilding goals they have. the second is by the security umbrella we provide a u.n. military and policing to create an enabling environment for their act is to come in and do some of those peacebuilding work and get that work started. the third aspect of the peacebuilding strategy is the roles, particularly civilian are actually peacebuilding jobs. but the human rights working with the national human rights institution is part of the stuff we need to transition into. >> mrs. mills questioned quickly and then we will open it up. >> very good question and a difficult one to wrestle with. when u.s. forces go in, i genuinely take the view that they are seen as what i would call partisan peacekeepers.
the u.s. is generally not there to be neutral and impartial. it is there to support. it is there to exercise implements and ideally in a positive direction for capacity building. national capacity development in fact is a critical issue and are at it -- rob wirt, transition in afghanistan. the taliban had baldwin by waiting. i mean, they will be dealing with a national forests, which may have legitimacy as our desire, our hope, the outcome in the end state. when we go and as partisan peacekeepers, with certain magnetic qualities. when we attract some, we may have to be careful about that. so we recognize that. the issue is are we dealing with spoilers who may not have any
public support within their community, just like the revolutionary united front in sierra leone and the british did that and that's one reason they did. it's is there a deep set insurgency reflecting a sectarian split within the country? we have to be very conscious. the mills of peace is one that we go in with a very focused concern about because we are generally seen. >> concur totally. first of all, civilians monthly destabilization operation. as a big debate about that in iraq. 75% of the rebuilding contracts were dod contracts, with the policy assigned to the state department. that created an insoluble, irresolvable dichotomy between
policy oversight and contract execution. but the mill piece at the outset is aimed at rule of law and that was missed to a certain extent for a substantial extent early on in iraq and was part of the cause of our policy move from liberating the prewar plan to occupy and rebuild the very quick postwar plan that we really weren't systemically capable of executing. >> the floors hoping. please identify yourself. >> in 1812, napoleon invaded russia, occupied moscow. he didn't go to well after that. question, did he get the post-conflict stabilization rob or did he simply misunderstand the nature of the war he had
initiated? [laughter] >> you are exceeding my scope of historical understanding here. it would not be the first time in history that radley the international community as a word unaccepted perceptions. i recall vividly in 2006 a general officer turning to me in the iraqi context and theme when we went ashore, we thought we'd be seen as the lewis and clark expedition. so local perceptions that a great deal. >> piling baker at the funds for peace. the political context in which all of these initiatives and lessons learned are being addressed. it seems to me there are two contradictory trends going on. internationally, it seems to be growing political will of some sort of coordinated effort to
solve these problems. we've got rtp, the new u.n. mandate in the congo, which is the first time a mandate has been given to have offensive operation instead of normal peacekeeping operations. yet in the united states, they go in the opposite direction. we've got sequestration. i don't know what kind of reception you can't not do so for bill, but i think there would be a lot of sympathetic skepticism in terms of doing anything new in anticipation of another operation and certainly not another operation on the scale of afghanistan and iraq. so the question is, how did these two political directions directions? can the international effort, not just the u.n. from original organizations, which i taken a more forward position. not only militarily, but diplomatically. if the u.s. pulled back, are
these new initiatives and lessons learned we talk about here, does it have any chance at all in moving us forward on this issue? and if the u.s. pulls back, does that doomed the international affair? how critical is the u.s. support to these kinds of operations? >> great question, pauline. i think a local responsibility for engagement multilateral level. there is planning as you point out going on with the ex-minister from syria is leading a? and effort for a post-conflict relief and we can action activity and is identifying areas that need 10 surveillance of dollars of aid, yet is wanting for u.s. connection on that point because there is no existing center of gravity to which he could connect. it's scattered across the interagency.
no more in afghanistan, a hope with which i agree is nevertheless a strategy in the goal of reform is to provide the president options with regard to how the country might respond to a variety of scenarios that would require stabilization and reconstruction help. right now, his options are limited because we don't have a fleshed out planning process and integrated capacity for carrying out positions. [inaudible] >> is a very positive response in both the house and the senate to the identification of the problem. interest in the solution, the recognition of the reality of passing a bill at this juncture. there is work being done on it and its work responsive, favorably responsive to the problem itself.
>> do you want to comment on the u.s. role? does that make life easier or harder for the u.s.? >> the two things he pointed out i related to each other in the international community is looking to address emerging situations in the places is quite frank related to the u.s. position. also the global financial crisis in the e.u. as well. as you said, also emerging partners. so the organization are really keen on willing and capable as a playing a bigger role in some of these scenarios as well. i think they are a connect to each other. i think the important thing is to make sure the right to apply to that scenario. some options have more legitimacy in some places than others. >> the next question is from the i/o here. and then i have charlie stevenson next.
>> thank you for the panelist discussion. i wonder if you can address the basic problem. for instance, every legislation appropriation may be a special interest group. you have to support those who will tell you and then we can have a real reform. we just have urged the resources resources -- the resources are lost and maybe they used the issues are may be in afghanistan after you build millions of dollars. [inaudible] they give it to a few private interest groups. i was wondering if you could
address the accountability issues of resources and whether those issues are apologized and whether the appointment of these issues -- we don't want to be shepherding the people. nobody knows what going wrong. there's only excuses. we can move forward from the basic level of accountability. >> your call point is exactly correct. as we point out in learning from iraq, at least a billion was wasted. another 300 million recovered from fraud investigation is going to be some way and way to accept them ever need to study the issue before we get in more
acutely. but we need to reform our approach to reduce the level of fraud, waste and abuse in these operations. with regard to the interest rate issue, this is one that doesn't have a particular interest group has he been describing. it is bipartisan us reflect to buy the sponsorship and there is bipartisan interest on the. whether that translates into passage remains to be seen. >> charlie stevenson is next. >> charlie stevenson, sites. i went to pick up on jim schear's point that senior leaders who elected to make use of this office i suppose because of the fear of leaks or unresolved policy disputes over what the situation was. let's assume the office exists today. what would you recommend and think it could accomplish, save for syria and egypt. what should they be doing today with those two issues and how
likely do you think senior leaders would be to say they'll do it? >> general patrice's interview in chapter two points out to succeed in a stabilization, you have to be absolutely completely conversant in the economy of politics, the history, the society, the real needs of the object country. that wasn't the case in iraq, and arrested in afghanistan. the iraqi interviews underscoring the point in eggs to substantiate the failure to consult about meeting those needs. so already for two years, save exist years ago, fully engage in those issues and preparing for a theory of the stabilization and reconstruction operation. with regard to suspicions about its role by generals are
ambassadors, been incumbent upon the director to make it clear to you so go was added, not a subtracted element, that it would help them accomplish mission, relieved them of duties outside their defense or diplomatic roles so they could focus on those. the defense come ensuring effective rule of law, the diplomacy ensuring the establishment of democracy and sovereignty and progress in the political sphere as the country recovers from failure and move towards stability. >> i thought jim's point was a little different. if you acknowledge your planning, does it create an inevitability to act in? can you plan as a hypothetical without pre-decisions? or does the planning in itself create some momentum? i think that might've been the point you're making. >> we maintain a very large military, but by maintaining it, we don't presumably like to use
it in an aggressive fashion. we maintain it so the president has options with regard to national security policy. planning, structure and capacity does not necessitate its actually use. >> gentleman in the yellow shirt. >> hi, david b-bravo at the humanities united. one question, just a comment building on what was said before. this proposal has to be broadened out with different sorts of parameters that the office, interagency office could actually do. as you are suggesting there's any number of rows that could do if the focus is on its planning and activities where there is a large operation i just don't see how the environment we have now it's really going to move forward. as you think how you pitch this to various audiences dsu of two
contributing countries in the limitations often saves because of restrictions on the troops of the contributing countries and anon on operation between its different phases and how you deal with liaising with the contributing country governments to make sure they are comfortable with the changing operations, particularly in a fast-moving environment in south sudan comment along the borders and said that they face in mass atrocity. how do you get the contributing countries to step up to their responsibilities that sometimes come forward in a rapid fashion without the security council thinking through are they going to execute on the new missions. sorry for the long comment. >> either of you want to
comment? >> well, the million dollars question in peacekeeping today. you're absolutely right, we are facing new mandates and security council. i would point to the new resolution 2098 as another example of that. the evolution of peacekeeping at a time the early 90s has gone from having western contributers security council members to contributing troops to take shape to a situation where a lot of countries from the developing world and major contributors. and now post-afghanistan, what is going to happen next? we hear a lot of rumblings about a return to peacekeeping operations as well. so we are working on a strategy of trying to expand the basic peacekeeping, trying to identify where problems have been and why some countries have moved away from peacekeeping about the need to do to incentivize bringing new countries then. we are working on trying to develop a set of u.n. capability standards across the full range
of function that if the u.n. at greece with member states at the countries feel comfortable about what they need to contribute and what will be expected of them when they do contribute. it's definitely a work in progress and with the help and cannot let with these new operations. >> if i could just have a point, which also speaks to polling baker's question. that is what we are seeing broadly globally is a movement towards regional responsibility, a distributed model for security but lived in haiti, the extent to which western hemisphere countries have stepped up is really impressive and quite frankly, brazilians know a heck of a about more about how to promote stability and peace then we would. so i give them a lot of credit. this new intervention will probably be from the region. the jury is out as to how it
will work. also in the heart of africa, virtually regional effort. the u.s. focus in these areas is to enable and promote the effort to rub in to rub in the call partnered operations, where we are training, insisting on the training, enabling, some of rising pursuant to law and direction from the president. it will be a light footprint. it will be to enable part is in various regions to work effectively. molly is a current evolving example. thank you. >> thank you. doug brooks, african-american chamber of commerce. one quick question to stuart bowen. one of the great successes was the accords and one part of that with ambassador palmer, a strong leader with the authority to act
and coordinate things and it works quite well. i wonder if you could touch on that issue. for jim, the question is, if we have all this expertise for stability operations, is it going to be chester and e.u. and rma units, for example, tend not to come our peacekeeping desai continued the training for the future and is it going to court date with the u.n. in the future? >> thanks, doug. you're right. course was a precursor to what is envisioned for the fact that operations. because of the strong leadership from ambassador colmer, it has a great legacy. it was somewhat replicated where there were strong leadership in iraq for the provincial reconstruction. it too brought the military and civilian members together to meet local needs and properly
overseeing, properly as i'd made a difference for the good that is true also in an. both of those aspects i think are part of the ancestry for the use of the ietf. the success of prt's improperly led anticipate he celko and would ensure proper leadership exist before that next operation began in proper training is accomplished before it starts and ensure these entities and capacities that executes a stabilization and reconstruction operations themselves are resourced. >> ., just a quick response. there will continue to be expertise in the pockets of strong compared to the knowledge but doubt the question that which will process. i will certainly recall that in the 2000 presidential election,
took a little bit of heat from the george w. bush campaign for not being prepared two-page traditional conflict because of its appointments in task force i believe. but infantry typically would be the most likely vehicle and also in the military education sphere, absolutely correct. the peacekeeping stabilization operation to the u.s. army war college, national defense university book a new to the pockets of expertise on which we can draw. but i do stress the need for good comparative knowledge. one of the biggest challenges we always have this one case study, which drives everything and people overgeneralize to say it works here, it can work everywhere else. thank you. >> i've got about six people so
far there may be a few others. the gentleman with the beard. >> , my name is felix martin come here for study abroad at georgetown university. my question is related to one of the main ideas, which was to broaden our lands and tools for transition. the diagram conflict was one of the first reactions to the united states like 30 or 40 years ago when the european union started the institutions for common security defense policy. there seems to be changes now because building up institutions for several military integration and even before in the wake of the disintegration of the ussr
in 1991 with the european union decided his work on civil military integration. my question would be to what extent do you also consider the institutions the european union has built up for civil military integration than the conflict management in your research? >> right question. the stabilization unit in the united kingdom is a good example of responding to this contemporary challenge. that has started to bring together civilian and military components within the u.k. to prepare it to be able to execute these settings. it's much smaller by definition and by scale. but it is same in the same direction. they think other member states and e.u. are similarly responding them to some extent, looking for us to respond in an integrated fashion.
>> in the back. >> thank you. csi has come a thank you your persistence. thank you for your skepticism. i want to jot down a little bit more on the realities of days. he is outlined about what needs to be done. my challenges who is the leadership on this coming model that only the congressional side, but in the thought leaders in this field? we all know about this. this is an unprecedented standard campaigns and foreign policy is never popular. do the things that resonate, for example, are what she do an oversight when people want our dollars go when they see the challenger for a ticket of remedy. this is if viewed this is prevention in some ways. i don't see how the campaign,
which this is, indeed been running for quite some time come is reaching people who need to do it. before vice president biden was in the senate, he took up iraq after this invasion, but i don't see on the appropriations committee or anybody else is there. many reports have continued to talk about the dysfunction of the congress, not only the organic rim of reconstruction. i really want you to drill down on what the reality of doing this is because people support these initiatives on all levels, but they don't see how this is going to happen in this climate when it's needed. >> great question. appropriations committee member, senator lindsey graham, also member when i briefed him on this idea was enthusiastically supportive. other members of the armed services committee similarly,
senator mccain, senator ayotte and senator corker on the foreign relations committee. so there are, although not terribly visible, yet substantial entries if not by an or the idea and similarly in the house. a broad bipartisan interests. who is a better saltpeter that ryan crocker on the subject now? the returning team at the bush school at texas a&m now at uva, continuing to lead the public discussion about this crucial issue. similarly, ambassador hers at the center for complex operations and a number of people at andy you are interested. so there is discussion. there is engagement on the hill with dad the public and private academic communities, most
importantly those most familiar with the subject. their general response has been positive. >> thank you match. i am a great admirer of your work,, so what i am about to say shouldn't be surprising. it strikes made this strikes made this is the civilians fighting the last war. we are building a hammer that would apply to the last wars at a time that we don't expect the next worse to look like those. ..
critical that we change our course. >> i every it's critical that we change our course. it is not acceptable and usoco is not a presumption that we will have another iraq and afghanistan. i can we had iraq and afghanistan such as they were because we didn't have integrated planning capacity or e effective oversight and that's why they lasted so long. i would urge that we would advert a future of iraq and afghanistan and buy more effective integration because the operations will be more successful.
and rather than being in nine or 12 years longer will be much shorter and we can have a vision for departure and expectation of what successful by ensuring that somebody has this mission as their primary duty. not as there is additional duty which is across the case interagency. it's in those five agencies engender. not the primary duty of any of them. they've been focused on their primary duty until suddenly called upon to respond. and they have been resources efficiently so they don't have the planning in place to execute and the oversight isn't there and you end up staying too long. it's too expensive. >> i'm going to invite a few people to quickly ask questions and then we will invite speakers to make their final comments. you and then margaret and then in the back and next to you. did you want to ask a question.
>> thank you. a question on my left here they cited the inherent complexity of these obligations to the and my question for you, and mr. bowen, is how would this office affected the inherently complex and difficult political and strategic questions on which most, perhaps not all but most of the missions found, for example, the decision to disband the iraqi army, the debaathification, allow them to resettle and the permanently created a vision and make it possible to implement the peace agreement allowing them to sustain the north, failure to back the land mission in rwanda, touching off the africa's weld war and the situation that we still face. so these really difficult and inherently politically strategic questions how does your office affect that? >> great question. >> if we could hold that
thought. margaret? >> thank you. margaret at georgetown. my question goes to i think a subject that has gotten far too little discussion, and that is how difficult it is to do capacity building, whenever that means, and how long. i would use the case where we have been building capacity for many years and there still isn't much there. and i fear that some of the exercises in africa may be the same. so how can we do that less and learning better and what progress is being made? >> in the back row?
>> thank you very much. independent consultant. dr. schear raised a couple of serious concerns of an organizational nature, and i would like to get mr. bowen to address them perhaps. one is that usoco of complex of five the chain of command because it is basically an institutional or fan, and the other one is that it would allow other agencies of the government to outsource responsibilities for stabilization operations. i think that is a concern that was true of an earlier version of usoco. i would like to ask mr. bowen how does usoco relate to the decision making process and the national security council, and does that then adequately address the concerns that dr. schear raises? >> david, a former colleague of gem. long to the point that jam
raised -- jim raised. the basis you are talking about which is planning the exit from the beginning, get in and get out quickly. i would hold actually that that is the wrong approach and once you have to leave from the beginning and once you focus on leaving too soon, then rather than focusing on the exit so quickly the exit as an end coming you are missing the opportunity to get things right. and i would say that over and over again we have made the mistake of planning to leave too soon, having too short term visions over and over and i would wonder if that has lead into your thinking at all. >> last question in the front row. why don't you wait for the microphone. >> hank retired from the u.s. government and cna now. since egypt is going to settle
its own thing with some diplomatic held by us and syria is helpless the next country is yemen and on some occasions in the past on separate occasions asked egyptian generals to tell me about their experience they wouldn't talk to me. should we go into yemen? [laughter] >> i'm going to invite all three speakers to take a minute and a half or two to speak to whatever means you heard that you must want to respond to. jim, why don't you go first. >> i'm not going to step up on that particular question. i think a lot of great input from a round the room. just a quick comment, i'm very sympathetic to the point that david makes in terms of leaving too soon, that can be a big
challenge. i would argue that as a part of our reform effort when we look at transitions, we need to do what i would call stress test planning. we need to look at these multi dimensional transitions and where are we going to have a problem in accommodating the responsibility to the host nation? part of the capacity building margaret raised as well. there are going to be cultural capacity difference is to read as we are seeing in the casualty he evacuation's in afghanistan as david tells as well and other places. so, we have to go troops each of these transitions from the tactical level training to the ministerial level development from full of the armed conflict approach to the law enforcement
approach to a quick impact stabilization assistance, the longer term development. all of these things require concerted and forward looking planning. and i think that is really important. finally i agree with the presumption on the question about nss needs to step up to the speed that's important and critical. >> leanne, a couple questions? >> on the national capacity development and planning exit from the beginning. margaret i think it is one of the hardest things we struggle with right now. the main problem i see is we are pinning their own people into the capacity development jobs. i was an international lawyer during the programming on the afghan foreign ministry. i know the skill sets in the building capacity. i've never been a technical expert in that area and i didn't know how to work with an older afghan man who had been there for 20 years and this supposed to listen to this young
australian woman doing her job but i'm earning $5,000 a month and he's earning $40. sony to build capacity and care about the building capacity and not just getting the job done. i think the second thing is once we build that capacity, how do we keep it there? if you are a young afghan and you are good enough and there are few enough of you that the international community wants you to pay you a salary or send you a lot why would you stay in the national service a look for the structures have to keep people in their countries on salaries that are never going to match what they are getting from the international community. on the planning from the beginning point, i think the way you cast it is absolutely right we shouldn't be planning to exit based on what we know the realities of the political interest and financial ability to be there but it's our job at least in peacekeeping to be planning what is meant to take to implement the mandate that we have been given and if that is less about xm and moribund
benchmarking achievements towards the end state of what we want to do i think that is slightly different than planning to exit from the beginning. it's planning what we are when to be doing while we, are there. >> on the complexity strategic decisions, i think that usoco, march 7, 2003 the president cited the iraqi army would be used post war on the rebuilding force, not dissolved, and debaathification that should be relatively shallow. when i interviewed the administrator leader about that subject, he said he didn't know about that if usoco existed then there would have been continuity and that equals strength and success in these kind of operations. the capacity building is a huge question. and we spent over 7 billion on that in iraq. what did we get for it? impossible to answer a question i think. part of the challenges that we didn't focus as you said ito effectively with the iraqi is needed at this juncture
anti-corruption capacity. very little spent in that area. usoco would ensure that that planning was done before the operation begins. mike, usoco wouldn't complex by the chain of command to the it it would fill an empty space. they are planning for and executing the relief and reconstruction activities. and the inner agency management system that was set up within the nsc to run these questions for iraq and afghanistan didn't really succeeded because it was itself an ad hoc with so much of the direct program. david, i agree that you don't take an exit date and you don't identify what you think it should be. but you envision what success should look like. that is another way of describing benchmarking. and then as you achieve what was called in the iraq conditions based the departure decision, then you have a sense of how the
operation ms. what does usoco do to alter that calculus as we have learned from iraq and afghanistan? what it does is provides the pre-operation planning, which is everything i think. to the success of the execution and the oversight. if you don't come as david petraeus said, engage in a deep understanding of the society of the economy, the politics, the history, the sectarian issues to be specific about iraq, then your execution is going to be on an ad hoc basis and you won't have what success looks like coming to view soon enough. >> we have run out of time. if i could just lincoln the question and the very important point that takes us back to the beginning. what we've been talking about today are tools to sort of the functional process these and skill sets that are needed, those hard policy choices of
what happens in very messy and unpredictable and on stable political environment. that's really happening at a different part of the government system if you will. and so, the decision of whether yemen matters enough for us or whether it is something that perhaps the u.n. or some other group of countries like india john is an equally compelling part but not the topic of today's discussion. so, i want to think you all for coming. and in particular a very warm thanks to leanne smith for coming back from new york and bringing a critical perspective. stuart bowen, we thank you for your service as a figure. we know it's wrapping up now. so look forward to seeing what happens next for you. jim, you were terrific and i thank you for being an important perspective in this discussion. thank you. [applause]
>> secretary of state john kerry today met with his iraqi counterpart on the reconstruction efforts. clashes continue in cairo and other cities. president obama made a statement earlier today about the violence. here is a portion of that. >> that's why we are so concerned by the recent events. we appreciate the complexity of the situation. wild mohammed morsi was elected president in a space election, his government was not inclusive and did not respect the views of all egyptians. we know that many egyptians, perhaps even a majority of the egyptians were calling for a
change in course. and while we do not believe the force is the way to resolve political differences, after the military intervention several weeks ago, they're remained a chance for reconciliation and an opportunity to pursue a space path. instead, we have seen a more dangerous path taken to the arbitrary arrests, a broad crackdown on mr. morsi's associations, and supporters and now tragically, violence has taken the lives of hundreds of people and has wounded thousands more. the united states strongly condemns the steps that have been taken by egypt's interim government and security forces. we deplore violence against civilians. we support the universal rights essentials to human dignity. including the right to peaceful protests. we oppose the pursuit of martial
law which denies the rights to citizens under the principle that security trump's individual freedom for that makes right. and today the united states extends its condolences to the families of those that were killed and those that were wounded. given the depth of our partnership with egypt, our national security interest in this pivotal part of the world and our belief that engagement can support a transition back to a democratically elected civilian government. we have sustained our commitment to egypt and its people. but while we want to sustain a relationship with egypt, our traditional cooperation cannot continue as usual when civilians are being killed in the streets. and rights are being rolled back. as a result, this morning we notified of the egyptian government that we are cancelling our by annual joint military exercise which was scheduled for next month. going forward i asked my
national security team to assess the implications of the actions taken by the interim government and for other steps that we may take as necessary with respect to the u.s. and egyptian relationship. let me say to that egypt in people deserve better than we have seen over the last several days. and to that the egyptian people, let's say the cycle of violence and escalation needs to stop. >> defense secretary chuck hagel spoke with the military head and acting president. the pentagon released a statement on their phone call. >> what's interesting about washington in this age is that once you have that title even if it is a very short title, even
if you have them voted out after one term, you can stay in washington and be a former chief of staff, former, a man and that itself is remarkable. you are in the club and that is a striking departure from the days in which people would come to washington to serve a little bit and then go back to the farm which i guess is all the founders had intended it. so there is a new dynamic now and a lot of it starts with money and the money available and the resources available for people to do very well.
last month the international festival called by annual were held in colorado. one of the defense focused on the potential growth for u.s. and businesses in latin america with the advancement of innovation and technology and a rising middle class. google executive chairman eric schmidt took part. the festival brings together leaders from business, government and the arts to discuss a range of issues important to the western hemisphere nations. the discussion was moderated by tina brown, editor-in-chief of the daily stand "newsweek". >> i am excited to be here in denver which is so innovative and a vibrant at this moment in time. you know, it is one of the places where there is a
mentality and an international focus which is really what makes it so particularly squadron of ideas. denver is rich in the institutional traditions like those on the east coast where i live. it embodies that old idea that you can build the world that you want to live in yourself. so much of that richness comes across from the immigrants pivoted a long, deep history going back hundreds of years before they showed up here and not the other day could teach washington quite a lot about our status in the potential [inaudible] [applause] the cure for recognizing the surge in the cultural forces of the americas coming our way but moving dramatic social change. you know, we hear so much about
immigration when we talk about latin america. and we forget that 73 million people are living out of poverty in that region in the last ten years. and this writing new middle class sees the founders of education and health care. they want to keep pace with their new expectations. latin america is going through a stunning demographic shift a lot more working age people which historically that is the time to get rich. so, we are going to talk about how we can maximize this exploding new opportunity and how we can collaborate well with them and run out of the rich and more exhilarated strengths of partnership. and at the same time, of course, we can't ignore the very disturbing problems that affect the region also. violence, homicide rates which have reached epidemic levels according to the who violence against women is really rampant
to allow all banks in both canada and latin america do so much better than the u.s. did in the last financial crisis, the judicial systems across the region are still in a dire need of reform. there is also of course a divided of the different countries across latin america are dealing with the forces of globalism. some deciding the best way to help their country is to open up and become global trading partners while others like ecuador and venezuela are putting up protectionist barriers and trying to safeguard the particular industry keeping parts of the economy close to the world. words the difference is that things they have in common, which makes for a very interesting and unique discussion that i think we can have tonight. and i want to now introduce our terrific panelist, a governor hickenlooper has certainly got to take part today. first of, there's the legendary cable business john malone on
liberty global, the world's largest cable company. we can truly say about john that he was cable before cable school. he started his career in 1953 at bell labs where all these ahead of the time he tells me the most far away is working on ve video telephone to read today liberty media and the dirty interactive and he served service on discovery and xm radio. and he's also, by the way, the largest private landowner now in the u.s. tv next, erica schmidt the chairman of google. when he joined the company in 2001, from silicon valley start-ups to now the global leader in technology at the very top of his to do list. he's overseeing technical and business strategy alongside
larry page from 2001 to 2011. he's also a very vigorous diplomat and ambassador for the technology world. he is a member of president obama's council of advisers and friends and technology and the press minister of great britain david kennon's advisory council. in 2008 by the 8 million latin americans were active online and today that number has ballooned to 129 million regular users. but i want to hear what he has to say about what this change will do to our world, and finally ambassador arturo sarukhan is the former mexican ambassador to the united states. it was a post he held for six years making him the longest serving mexican ambassador at one time where he saw the enormous change between making america and kind of defending economically challenged power and you know, the americas are and exploding in the booming area. so he has seen the whole trajectory take place to be he's
now a fellow at the brookings institute and a global strategic consulting firm based in washington. you also ought to know that he's kind of bug justin bieber as well. he now has over 100,000 followers on atwitter. he's right to be tweeting a store. welcome to all of the panelists and let's get going. [applause] >> let's start with you, eric schmidt. it has been in game changer and you have turned that one and
changed all of our lives. so what in your view on the reinventions would create the new world and what fits them and how do we foster them? >> thank you for putting this together. it's very important. we are right on the cusp of a change in human intelligence and human understanding. all of its work that you come all of us, certainly all of us have done to build a society that is knowledge based means we can begin to build systems that will make you that much smarter. these sorts of devices will wander around with you and your permission and all of that and will help you in extraordinary ways to make suggestions of new ideas and things that you want to do and make suggestions for
fun things and also make suggestions for businesses and keep you connected. so, the advent of the mobile device and the complication device and platform means it is a transition to the college is fundamental. from my perspective, that then starts real changes. the new ideas and transportation, the new ways of getting around driving cars and all those kind of things coming enormous changes in medicine. again, a very good diagnostic. a pop a pill and it will go out to your phone, the phone will go to the doctor and the doctor will call you back if you need to talk to him. all of these systems are just ready now for prime time and will use them because they will make our lives easier, smarter, faster and so forth. the american innovation engines, the universities, the capitol funding model that has built all of this is the best in the world. and i think that it will continue to produce innovations at this rate or faster.
>> may be almost too fast for human beings to keep up with them. some of the things you talk about can be dehumanizing and segregating because all of this technology pushes people apart as much as it brings people together. >> i disagree a little bit and i would offer your friendly teenager as an example. if you have a teenager awake they are on line. if they wake up they are on line. there are more communicators and connected than we could have ever imagined. that high of of knowledge and friendship and connectivity will propel the next generation far faster than we have ever been. >> you must be fascinated to see that extraordinary exploration of some of these technologies that eric is talking about.
how does being an engineer shape he was an innovator and what do you see the world moving with such a high velocity technological change. >> it seems that these technologies are accumulative and their effect. the invention could be propagated in massive scale. the acceleration and the pace of the innovation just took off. it seems to me everything they taught me an engineering school is completely obsolete after school. in the technologies of the day are pretty obsolete and pretty quickly. so what the teacher in school was to learn how to learn if it is a good school and how to
adopt. so, the technologies that we are talking about today with a whole bunch of parallel inventions and strengths that are combined into the kind of advice that eric was playing too and it seems the open up so many doors for innovation and invention and community and from an invention point of view, you know, the combination they have out in silicon valley is pretty unique in the world in terms of human capital, financial capital an entrepreneur should and it's created this momentum for america but it is spread. >> the opportunity now being presented in the explosion of
the technology in the americas. and in the new economic shift and the federal shift what do you feel of the great investor and businessman? what opportunities do you see one of the exploding in this region that we could be exploding now? >> i think you try to anticipate the demand for implementation of these technologies. succumb and of course it varies geographically around the world. but the power of these electronic technologies, not these digital technologies is that they are global in scope so there is a standard that can be invented to and once the services are offered they are available to pretty much i would guess today half of the planet and households. the other half means to develop an economic base to for this debate which is a big challenge
by the way. but the scale has never an seen before. this is the reason some of these companies seem to emerge from nowhere and become huge overnight is because they are playing such a large sand box. >> and create incredible violent changes. the ambassador to the times, you were investor as i said in an introduction and you have seen this big demographic shift and you have seen the economic surging of the americas. tell me how you're point of view about that and what we can learn from these changes we are not using right now in the region. >> let me simply start by saying that i am delighted to be back in colorado and denver. when the then mayor witold him i would be the monkey so i'm back to help this.
i think that as you look at the americas south of the rio grande, technology has become a leveller and has helped the reinvention of communities. understanding community has the attraction between citizens and public policy. technology has provided -- a lot of societies and we just saw this in brazil where first of all, an expanding middle class and the technology is finding new pioneering ways of impacting the way the decision making occurs in a society. there's one very important trend that i think has happened in the southern part of the hemisphere, which is contrary to what happened here where the middle class is made the under strain, and where they are in countries
like mexico, brazil, chile and peru and colombia. the middle class is on expanding. its combined with economic growth but also shifting demographics. so there is a fundamental tectonic shift i think there was a change occurring, which will change the traditional way in which north and south in the hemisphere have interactive on anything from how do we educate our kids, what do public policies look like, how do you ensure that the political parties remain responsive to citizens, which is a common denominator across americas. the tea party and occupy wall street are two extremes of that in the united states but you also see it in brazil recently and in chile with a student demand. you have seen it in mexico in the previous campaign and in other countries around the world. how did the modern political process seems to into account the new demand for the holders
of in society and the technology i think is a common threat that brings all of this together. >> what is interesting of courses that it's ironic that as the middle class is in a way the desire of the social unrest because it is only when you have the time to glance at a better future that you start to become discontent more powerfully and start to come out and protest as we have seen recently in brazil. and of course so much of these big technological changes are also leading us to skewed prosperity. because you think such concentrations of wealth in the small pockets of the country across america as well. how do we deal with this prosperity problem if you have heard it becoming something of a mess? >> i think most people know this very well latin america is the region in the world that's
africa. but latin america still has some of the highest incomes in the world. so, the challenge i think for the public policy for how we reinvent public policy and how we reinvented the community is how to ensure that people are not left behind and how to make sure that from the most humble shoeshine are in the main plaza of any town or city in latin america is the most important tycoon the democracy is delivering the goods. that there is a chance to continue creating prosperity. this is a very vexing challenge and it is going to be there through the remainder. i think things have improved dramatically in the hemisphere. if you look simply because of this huge change that i was referring to in some of the latin american countries but it is still going to be an outstanding problem. >> in mexico but i find surprising and talking to you is it seems as though in the last three administrations there have
been quite a lot in the social policy. with programs like the conditional program where people are in a sense given money to keep their kids in school which costs them the cycle of getting out of poverty. >> it's not only keeping the kids in school, it is ensuring that first of all this is a conditional cash transfer program in which the money is given to the female head of household, not the male. >> that's really critical. [laughter] [applause] >> because the men just during the late -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> she has to go with the kids to get their medical examinations, their vaccines and we have to be enrolled in school grades if any of those variables are not on the traditional but are withheld regardless of their
policy that they belong to do not people out of the street in mexico. so i think these programs can work to a point where mike bloomberg went down to mexico years ago to look at the program and see how some of the issues could be tongue-in-cheek tropical wise to to generate that kind of traditional program to create on to the inertia and the sense of the stakeholder ship in the society. and so, given that is also brings us to a very important fact which is the role of cities in the reinvention of the community and i think it is very fitting that we are in denver in the city that is being reinvented and that has reinvented itself. the cities have become the innovation of the enlightened public policy when you see the gridlock in washington they are reinventing the public policy. that is what is happening to the and it's happening not only in the united states but in places
like mexico city. so, there is a very interesting connection between all of these issues playing out where the city's become the new high of seven of asian, cultural diversity in creative industries and of the mortalities. >> you were famously a very strong libertarian. so how do you feel about the kind of government intervention. it's a traditional cash transfer to create a social policy that in a sense does keep pace with the accelerated change. >> i am a libertarian but i am also pragmatic. the issue is so many government programs that don't work and that become business and never go away. the accumulative buildup of i call the intergovernmental overhead i think is a burden on the society. but clearly has the audience
indicated earlier it's all of education and these technologies if they can be used to upgrade to the effectiveness and the efficiency of education and the quality of education and the affordability in particular of education. and it's not just education of the fact it is education of culture of several understandings of why the societies function and why the democracy is a pretty practical way for the civilization to be conducted. it seems to me that is the core benefit to lifting the entire human race. and as eric pointed out, technology does have come and this globalization does have a tendency to create massive
distribution of wealth disparities. we were speculating the impact how do you deal with that as a society. well, america has never been a nation that created the family tax system didn't encourage that and in fact we were encouraged to beat the improbable, and i think that is a good thing. as a, a combination of the philanthropy of the investing in the society where these massive wealth effects take place and i think that they are driven by scale. >> but the the thing is it doesn't always work. america has a fantastic tradition. i know coming from the u.k. we do not have that tradition. it was a term that i found most
exciting and revealing when i came here with just immense generosity which is absolutely unlike anything i had ever experienced in my country. but in the countries in latin america it's not a tradition to philanthropy. they get away huge swaths of their money. it's no tradition of philanthropy. so i am so much of the digital revolution is also causing a great deal of unemployment because the fact is, you know, we talk about the programs and we train people so that they learned these new skills that require the digital economy. but let's think they are never going to hire a 52-year-old man that's been retrained at a community college. >> one never knows. [laughter]
and so, you know, there is this enormous swath of what i call beached white males left behind on the one hand. [laughter] >> i can just see the headline. [laughter] >> absolutely. i'm getting my revenge because there is no other woman on this panel. [laughter] and then you've also got kids coming out of school and they can't get jobs which is creating the occupy wall street and the huge protest. what are we doing about this job that is being created by the brave new world? >> let's distinguish between the developed world. in the next five years, our estimated -- another 5 billion of the smart phones and the very end of the smart phones would get into the hands of the global citizens. in the developing countries that we should have never had access to information, any kind of personal or political freedom. these are extraordinary devices.
so, for them, it is to expect from poverty and the lower middle class and the two are described is a very big deal. and that would drive a lot of the developmental middle class would drive a lot of literacy. and the more mature economy like europe which has decided for whatever reason not to grow the united states. each of these countries is dealing with the compound demographic globalization of the nation's. but demographics, you have older people and fewer people, fewer young people which means fewer people will support more people that need support just mathematically. with the globalization is roughly automation means the computer took my job. so that's sort of the way to
complain about it. i think the way to describe what's happening is we are shifting largely from the resource based economies arming the national resources and so forth to of a knowledge economy and a knowledge economy you have the have the right to the enlightened views on how you are successful and it's about education, it's about connectivity, it's about immigration and it's out in provincial of women in society giving them opportunities they might not have and making it possible for them to operate at the same level or even better. all of those have to be part of a coherent strategy. the countries that get the right are going to grow. automation can occur anywhere. we have lots of examples. estonia to be a country that many of you haven't been to i suspect turns out to the best cybersecurity country. a very high-tech exporters. there are examples of countries that have chosen to focus in parts of the knowledge economy
where they are exceptional and this can be done in any of the century's. >> arturo what do you think that the immigration bill? how do you look at that from the latin america point of view? >> there is no more important structure issue for the well-being prosperity and security of united states in getting the immigration reform right. [applause] if the u.s. gets it right it will have radiating affects across the americas. it's a simple equation was elected to the text to labor abundance. you know how this works.
there is synergy in the changing demographic and by the way. they are changing profoundly. so 20, 25 years at the current rate of growth in countries like mexico or peru or chollet or brazil, they traditionally came into for example construction in long island or the vineyards in napa and sonoma, for 20, 25 years that lever isn't going to be there. so how do you build a bridge between the largest probably the best trained labour force coming into the market in the latin american and caribbean and what will happen and 20, 25 years with demographics throughout the americas? it's about security and prosperity of the nation's. and i know that this is a very divisive and has been a very toxic issue in america.
but immigrants are not as threatened of the security in the united states. >> can on a point something out? [applause] i would love to find a reasonable opponent to arturo's position. i just can't find one. so let me make my case. america takes these people from a around the world, educates them in the best universities in america and then takes them out to go to other countries to start companies that compete with us taking jobs away. are you with me? am i missing something? okay. [applause] we are completely in agreement but i would add to the point which is absolutely valid that it is not only about people in the sectors. it's also about those growers in the central valley in california and the construction companies in upstate new york i know we
call them on a skilled labour but there is a lot of skill -- >> you know what we call them? we call them customers. [laughter] >> america is growing and with growth comes revenue growth. the of the internet need for spending in all of the programs and more customers, more taxpayers. what am i missing? >> the reason is because it is a tremendous fear they are coming to take our jobs. >> they are creating jobs. and by the way, the economic data support my position, the moral position support my position. it's consistent with america's historic strength in the immigrant country. right? in silicon valley which i know well, 40% of the start-ups are done by the foreign born
immigrants. google was founded by one or two founders and america. certainly peace-loving people >> i'm waiting for the argument against our position. >> i think unfortunately -- you have been living in this region and build your enormous fortune in the region and you are the biggest land owner now in america second. what are the particular problems that you found in the region and the rich immigrant background in terms of the history of the state? tell me what a particular benefits there are for having built your business and your life and your portion in this region of america. how does it define what you have
done? >> being headquartered here for four years, it was a great central location for the communications industry nationally as it developed. it also happens to be a great place for the satellite transmissions because there are not as many clouds up their. so i think it was just a great place to build a business and a great place to live. i would like to give back a little bit to the immigration issue because i think the challenge is not so much that mexican hard-working people are going to come in and take jobs, but american kids are not trained, educated and motivated to do the jobs. [applause] so, you know, i think that labor should move around just as capital showed. it should move freely to
whenever it is most productive and efficient. i tell a little story. my son got a doctorate in robotics at cornell. his lab mate was a russian kid who was clear to do work on the projects in the advanced kunkel theory. when he got his doctorate he had to leave the country because he couldn't get a green card to stay. and i asked him. i said what is your best job opportunity and he said iran. [laughter] he said you may notice they have thousands with the guidance on the missile system. [laughter] i mean, this behavior is suicidal. every leading politician that you talked to agrees with that. and yet it has been so
frustrating that it has been years as an issue and hasn't been resolved. so hopefully they will have the guts this time to finally get it over the finish line. >> but to arturo's plight it is hopeless and the situation and getting the innocent and the innovative done and therefore it is driving on the innovation back to the city level and the state level. >> let's go back because he is right. the engine of innovation is now in the cities in the world and to some degree is the states as well. the federal government are caught up in these issues and can't seem to make any progress. what's happening is you're seeing private business solutions so there are quite a few groups working on america with the hispanic communities in the other parts of america. they are made perfectly good sense whether it is from remittances, communications and so forth. from their perspective is one language, one culture. there's opportunities because of
the telecommunications and frankly to sort of make this possible they are driving this agenda well ahead of the politicians can do. so the communications revolution the enlightened cities and the entrepreneurs we can actually solve this problem even if the government's lack of. maybe we always complained the government for hundreds of years and maybe we want them to. we should let them -- mick sure that they are letting us get ahead. not have those like the immigration rules, and let us cross borders using you're point. >> with twitter and the social media how people can voice their disagreement with the way the business do businesses.
that accountability -- >> the public security. >> so, perhaps the gridlock by more of the social media action in terms of people voicing their protest on the issues of this time. is their anything that you think can be done? i'm looking all over the world scene these protests but occupy wall street kind of sizzles out and we see that immigration is one of those classic examples where he would hold that technology and social media could drive a change in policy. do you see that happening in america? >> one of the things you learn and use live in this world but we all live in is how powerful the incumbency's are. they have locked themselves in pretty hard between the campaign finance the nation's, gerrymandering, drawing the borders so that they are correct, etc., etc. and it's not a perfect system.
ultimately, transparency does fix these problems. if you are a person in the country where you have no particular reason to trust the police and you are a woman that is unsure of her own safety and that kind of stuff these devices are getting enormously in power in seoul and one of these people that believe that enough people mobilizing will in fact change public policy in spite of the incumbency's. >> arturo, and very interested we should talk about some of the things happening of course in latin america such as the violence issue. we just saw the arrest today of the leader of the gang that is a hideous drug cartel criminal. and i reading this decapitation
and kidnapping and so forth. violence is still such an issue in this area in latin america. what do you think can be done about that in this sort of new booming economy you have technologies and you are saying that technology can be very much applied to the address in the violence issue, too. >> certainly. in the public security or the human security to talk about it in a more positive light throughout the caribbean and latin america is probably one of the number one, and number two issues of concern to the citizens throughout the region. but i think again here, despite the nominal challenges of some of the countries face, i am pretty bullish as to how technology can be and is used to mobilize society, mobilize the
public opinion. we work hand in hand with google and mexico to provide sms that can be sent to police without a trace of who was sending it so you could do it and therefore your appetite for saying i think something is going on next door, it was creating a confidence-building measure using the technology. i think i can see the colombian ambassador in the united states today back there and look at what happened in colombia five or six years ago where the society mobilized via the social media to say no to violence over the paramilitary groups and is to say no to the armed insurgency is pitting it was a very powerful organizing tool. so i do think technology can create a sense of a stakeholder ship. look at mexico and a look at for example the two case studies. and you went to el paso.
one of the reasons why bill el paso is in a tighter spot is because the civil society stayed put. the society come from to the strategy, to come from organized crime, demobilize and work hand-in-hand with the private sector and the private sector didn't account for the inside of the border. they stayed and they stayed put and they started creating these networks of the responsibility and ownership. ..
some of the models we have seen develop in several countries around the region. >> the bad actors could get ahold of this technology, too, their ability to connect with one another. >> the ambassador as to actually set up a business as part of our book research. we wrote a book that came out a few months ago. actually went and steady this at some length. and when you want to run the world, as jerry and i did, all sorts of wacky countries. [laughter] the number one priority of most people, the majority of people is basically security and corruption. all the other conversations we're having tend to really get to that conversation.
and so we have worked at some length to try to come up with systems which provide an anonymous reporting and thorough tracking. it goes something like this, it turns out that in at this cities that are in trouble in mexico, the local citizens know who the bad guys are, they're just afraid to tell you because they don't want to be killed brutally and the stories are horrific series of if you construct a way of doing anonymous reporting and an honest responding because they're responders are also afraid for their lives, then you can begin to build the matrix and do the kind of policing that has brought the crime rate in american cities down so low, murders and so on. we are all familiar with that. from the standpoint of financial transparency because almost everything is now electronic, if you want to you really can root out most corruption. most of the country seem to have a problem where the political leaders seem to have an awful lot more land, yachts, houses,
cars, and courses in some cases. [laughter] it turns out that there are projects around the world to record all these things. it is hard to move. you can see this stuff. building a culture a transparency with respect to the actions of political figures, building a structure where the money is traced so we can figure out where the money is going, all of this, if you can get through that conversation then we can work on the other things, which are very important. >> john, the you -- is its corruption that might inhibit you from investing in this? do you feel -- i mean, how much do you invest in these regions and what has been your experience? do you find this lack of transparency a major innovation for investing?
>> it is problem number one when you look at investing, particularly in infrastructure because those are very long life investments. and so you have to be reasonably confident you're investing in an area that is politically stable, believes in private property rights, and is not overwhelmed by corruption. you know, frankly it is very hard to contemplate a fixed investment and a place like russia today. the system of private property and law really has not been worked out yet. so you can engage in certain businesses and territories, but not those that require you to expose a lot of couple of -- capital for an extended amount of time. a great example for us in latin america has been our successful investment in chile where we have done communications company investing in infrastructure now
for probably 15 years. very successful. and have really enjoyed the relationships. mexico has been a wonderful place for our direct tv business it is increasingly a country in which people are comfortably making large capitol investments in infrastructure. so it is, you know, away from the border, mexico is actually doing very well. >> and you have also in mexico the problem of doo-wop listen, major concentrations. that probably is an innovation, is it not? >> it is great to be partners with some of these people. [laughter] but i think that will change over time. this is part of the rising middle-class, the democratization of society. and, frankly, the thing that turned the corner for that
country versus places like argentina is that the people who were successful began to reinvest in their own country. there has been a tendency, particularly in latin america, that when you're an entrepreneur and you are successful you want to get the capitol out of the country as fast as possible. and you know, one by one and number of latin american countries, that is changing. people with immense wealth who are successful in the country's are starting to reinvest in their own country, and i think that is a great trend, particularly for latin america. >> how do you find these partners? if it is such a kind of closed system in so many places. how do americans break-in and invest? >> the first for me is, can you borrow money in the domestic currency to make anything? is there a pool of capital available domestically.
it largely because they privatize social security and the country and have run it very rationally, they have built a large pool of domestic middle-class capital, and the returns for the middle-class citizen who has been in that system would be very attractive. so they have built a belief in investment and capitalism, and that makes the domestic capitol available, primarily to local businesses, but also to foreign investors who want to invest in infrastructure and are now willing to take the currency risk of having your investment in dollars, your income in pesos. that has been a real problem in terms of currency stability. slick of venezuela right now. the official exchange rate his
about five times higher than what you can actually trade into dollars for. so as latin america evolves and develops and develops domestic capital and as political stability, very important that they keep their promise, which is the exchange ability of their currency, that they keep that open and transparent. i think that is a great way to boost direct foreign investment, which is important. >> there is some taking place there. if you allow a tongue-in-cheek reference to what we're seeing in latin america, latin america today is a coalition of the free trade. countries that are investing in developing ties to deepen our
connectivity to the rest of the world. you start looking at the hemisphere and canada and the united states and mexico and peru and colombia and of course panama, all countries bound together by free trade agreements amongst themselves, free trade remiss with the unit is still to have united states, some of the members of opec, some now negotiating with ppp. so there is a new configuration which is binding these countries that belief in a rules based international trading system because -- i am not committing a diplomatic cent, is going nowhere. if you look at what is going to build -- with the new building blocks of the system, it is that ppp on the one hand, and that deal that is being negotiated with the european union on the other hand. these are the two big game
changers bringing countries together that believe in the international system based on free and fair trade which is also changing the dynamics of corporations and business looking to invest and to create economic growth, but also the growing middle class, the greater jobs linked to exports, and this is a tidal wave that is growing in the hemisphere which is very important. people focus a lot of the bricks. obviously mexico, i am a rock-and-roll fan. not a member of a brick. i smile and say, well, i'm a huge pink floyd fan and i think mexico is just another brick in the wall. i think we have some structural changes. some of the brick nations have not undergone the mint. but i think there is a very interesting change occurring in
the americas based on trade and growth via trade which we have seen in mexico, peru, colombia, is happening, and it is real. >> it is ironic that we spend so much time talking about china and the pivot to asia when there is action going on in the americas. at of the people kind of realize what a wild success after really was. twenty years after, the 20th anniversary of how successful it turns out to be and how this new initiative which we talked about is really on the political conversational agenda. >> absolutely. >> that is a powerful transformation. >> how transformational can one. $2 billion a day of trade going back between mexico and the united states b? is a profound. >> says that except you, the thought of this?
>> absolutely. >> what are you going to do about it? i want you to make a commitment right now. what will you be doing about all of this? what you will still $1.2 billion a day of trade . >> it is absolutely true that when we look south we have to a trade -- a trading partner that is in balance with the u.s. this potentially an enormous source of use and labor and energy that our society, you know, is desperately going to need in the future. you know, this is our future. you know, we are very, very lucky that we have a country like mexico on our border that has this useful, energetic population. and, you know, frankly -- and we hear round them up and send them home. our economy would absolutely
collapse. we could not function as a country without our guest workers. why we are playing ostrich on that subject is beyond me. to get back to the immigration. [applause] >> what about google? >> our fastest-growing region is latin america. and that is because the internet is being proven in latin america very quickly. the growth of these new middle-class presages a great for word revenue support. not just google, but many internet companies, people who want something that we have in the united states. if he think about the politics in the united states, hispanics are the fastest-growing subsection. it's good politics. it's good business. frankly, there's a lot of talent
there. ♪ let's just move it a bit to the old impact of the culture and entertainment. i know that a lot of these popular tv shows and new kind of television dramas, educating in a sense. isn't the number one show right now in mexico about the sons and daughters of oligarchs in mexico who have been forced into the establishment of nobility. sons and daughters of the rich must not become a domestic families forced to know how the other half lives. do you think this is playing a major role? >> i think creative industries have always played a role. increasingly so. as that content becomes even more and more.
and if you look at the americas, one of the great unique advantages that we have is the incredible, incredible power of culture and our creative industry. i don't have to say what it means for the united states, but think of mexico, which is a large savate to the provider of spanish-speaking media content in the world. and these industries provide not only a unique narrative of our country in other parts of the world as to who we are and how we are and what we think and how we -- but also, again, they are turning into a huge economic engine throughout the americas. again, it boils down to the issue of cities are the place where all of this is taking place. it is a layer cake where, again, this city as a hub of cultural
innovation is playing a unique role in what i think is in its national system that is going back to the late middle ages, early renaissance of city-state's. instead of hamburg you have new york city and london and shanghai and mexico city. it is here where all of this is taking place. and it is cultural industries and creative industry the play a unique role. not only in terms of economic growth, but value and value systems and education, educating individuals and people. they become with other societies about what we are and what we do. >> one of the problems in this huge boom and content is how you find good stuff. you are drowning in it. and our rhythms are constantly being invented.
commensurate with what you want to. what you're actually seeking out, but how do you find it? i think -- i want to hear about it. i have to say, i am a complete binge watcher of danish drama shows which i get from netflix. the only way i believe that i know about them and also a great show called sparrow which is a drama. somehow someone tell me about this. i found it. always as the way i find it. i only find it because somebody personally has recommended to me . it's a little more important. because you need arbiters to tell you things. how do we make sure that society is not drowned in garbage? [laughter] >> a lot of people would you current television in a different way, but i think we
went from three television channels to 50 to 500 to 10,000. and if you look at the current version of youtube you will see, we have moved to a model where we suggest instead of channels that you might like based on what we have been able to gather about who you are. >> but i keep being told i like more danish trauma. [laughter] i am drowning in but the danish trauma. i have an eclectic taste. >> you speak the language. you need to hunt check that box. [laughter] now, these are learning algorithms. i talked a little bit about the threshold of a real explosion. they attempt to learn your preferences. netflix, much more simple example. based upon your pattern and what other people have done, which is a technology called associated
matching, if you like these three and a whole bunch of other people like these three and also watch this, netflix will suggest that to you which is a pretty good system. we style ourselves as highly independent and are very similar to people with the same background in education. >> this is where i disagree. they give me what i never wanted. it is said to me you're going to like danish trauma, would have laughed. >> that is called serendipity. i decided disagreed you, it can be a program. >> you want to take away my job as well. you have horrible management comes to taking away people's jobs. [laughter] >> there will always be people who have talent and taste who will be needed to a judge the
quality of the algorithm. you have a job. [laughter] >> what a relief. is distribution king or is content can? you're always having these conversations. where did you come out? >> first of all, i want to say that google is probably implying some of the very brightest people in the world trying to reverse engineer their algorithms. [laughter] to figure out how you come to the top of the list on their search, right? because it is an entirely clear how they do that. a little bit of magic, a little bit of serendipity. [laughter] it is driven by some kind of a long-term profit maximization, i'm sure. >> that is actually not true. not true. >> enlightened.
>> it is actually not what we do. [laughter] >> but the other thing, a deep thinker, donald rumsfeld, he said one time that is not what you don't know, it's what you don't know that you don't know. so that is the problem with you and the danish series. [laughter] >> i'm so happy. >> it is somewhat circular. at the end of the day the whole media entertainment business is all about contents. so that is always the king. unique content is what people want to to have access to in the entertainment here. distribution is just an endless effort to do a better job, a little more efficient job of connecting people to what the what. the winner is the guy that does
that most efficiently and effectively. >> what do you think about the un funding? new initiatives. unbundle the cable offerings. my concern about that is that quality content, if it's unbundled from sports and sex -- i mean, that is basically -- you are collapsing. >> well, you know, politicians have suggested that there is a political solution to this bundling thing where you have to buy the whole thing or you can have any of it, which is really under the control of the content owners, not the distributors. i actually think ultimately technology will, rather than politics, be the solution for that because increasingly people
who have random access to what they do want and will selectively by what they do one to and avoid buying the package that has a lot of costs bearing things they don't want. and so our society is way too competitive sellout this current anomaly to persist. that would be mine. >> what i find very interesting about latin america and how it is now leaping ahead with technology. there will leapfrog over. so most people i think now have gone straight to mobile. they don't have necessarily laptops or computers. what is that going to do for the innovation of content and technology? >> it turns out that in many countries building the traditional infrastructure is almost impossible. it just takes too long.
and so people are skipping. and if you look at most countries, even of the worst countries, there is one profitable business, it's the telecommunications carrier. in somalia, for example, the only profitable legitimate business in somalia is telecommunications because the pirates need to talk to somebody. i'm actually serious. >> i wanted to comment a little bit about this question of a creativity and the content which she talked about earlier. i had originally as an engineer naively assumed that hollywood did not fully find all of the talented people. in other words, if we would wired the world with the internet, these incredibly creative people who were sitting in strange places which show up monday. indeed, there was evidence that that was true. it looks like hollywood -- i'm using it as a metaphor -- does a
remarkably good job of finding that talents. we should respect what they have accomplished. what we're seeing now is very interesting. we are seeing the next generation of hollywood studios producing for the internet. i would expect the same phenomenon to occur in all of the american countries. it is simply so expensive to produce a quality show for the equivalent of youtube and so forth, the cost of access is lower, the cost of the door, position is lower. so we're seeing a generational shift. and that has important implications for the business models of all the content creator companies as they try to figure out how to monitor this new content. if you're producing more content is more professional in many ways, different access points and a lot of effort. year earlier question about creation.
>> let me just very quickly get back to the issue of what is happening with some of the technology in the americas and how it is seeming to leapfrog. part of it is not only what eric described here, but also because some of these platforms are being used not only to plug in people and connect them, but they are used for communities that don't have a bank, have never had a banking culture and their lives, and it is being used from the ad states to provide the ability to pay someone. so you are not only leapfrogging certain aspects of what has happened in other economies and markets, but it is being brought -- it is being sped up because of the uses beyond which to fight beyond disconnecting and talking or looking to the internet or calling someone.
>> it is remarkable what that has achieved. of course, one of the problems is the enormous amount of this content and a cheapness of which it cannot be created as some terrible things to the actual artists, writers, musicians and so forth to are producing it because they've never felt more poor right now than they do. they're writing so much less. the magazine and publishing and so forth. they can't get paid like they used to. filmmakers find that they cannot get paid what they used to be paid. it tremendous sort of harsh ship given the area of producing creative intellectual content. and how do you feel about that in terms -- even to be a producer. >> it is a very serious issue. the thing that is most a threat is investigating reporting which was subsidized by the other economic and social good will which is an area where they try
to find some of it and so forth, but the core issue with the economics, when the internet arrives in town it straightens out the economics of some of these industries. over time the internet will drive people -- they will want a choice. that won't necessarily want just a bundle. pitbull what pieces. you're going to see that in many, many industries. the core problem with the internet is we have not been able to get replace the modernization in the old model by the new model. >> it has been a long time. >> we have been working hard. >> i'm telling you, on that line their waiting for the oasis. >> there are actually three interesting success stories, one of which is yours. thank you. she is actually one of the success stories. another one is the huffington
post and another one is political. so those are models were a combination of clever editing to mike clever advertising cannot target demographics work to disrupt the incumbent, and there are some and magazines were a tremendous concern that it would go away. and the ipad shows the, but it is actually quite good. as magazines were difficult, they did extremely well, especially because you can now hyperlink. so we are in a technological transition driven by consumer behavior. we have not fully replace the modernization. it is very disruptive, without question, but there are new choices, new voices. >> let's hope for that. we are nearing the end of our time. the vibrant discussion here. before return to questions from the audience with joel do in
just a minute, i want to ask each of our panelists if they're is a single initiative a partnership or out reset would like to see happen after this conference in terms of an idea that you would want to put out there. where it -- what would you like to see happen in terms of using the and opportunity of expandine great new fields out there. >> i would like to see everyone sign up for the cato institute and the libertarian society. [laughter] >> a scary idea. >> and involved political system. >> we will leave that on the table. eric. [laughter] >> at the keep could imagine a set of trees among the americas which would harmonize the trading rules, the access, e
ways in which capital flows consistent with what john was talking about earlier. it is worth talking about. over and over again, these are friendly markets of compatible people. a lot of good political reasons to do this. we are stronger with strong economics, and we are weaker with bad economics. the problems in latin america, the countries that are in trouble, they will affect us because the problems that goes on in those countries will spillover into the stable partners that we need. we need the neighbors to be just as stable. >> think you're absolutely right. i think that the future lies in understanding that